x
Breaking News
More () »

Iowa Supreme Court: Landowner must allow Summit Carbon to survey his land

The ruling comes after a landowner in Hardin County refused to let Summit Carbon Solutions onto his private property to survey the land for potential pipeline usage.

DES MOINES, Iowa — A landowner in Hardin County must allow Summit Carbon Solutions access to his private property following a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court.

The ruling comes after Summit Carbon Solutions repeatedly requested access to survey Kent Kasischke's land in order to determine the direction and depth of a proposed carbon pipeline. 

However, Kasischke refused to let Summit Carbon Solutions onto his land, claiming it violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. 

When a district court ordered Kasichke to allow Summit access, Kasischke appealed the case to the Iowa Supreme Court.

However, the Iowa Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision. 

"Kasischke’s constitutional claim fails because the statute did not take away a property right that he owned," wrote Justice Thomas D. Waterman on behalf of the court. "Rather, he has no right to exclude the surveyor because section 479B.15 is a lawful pre-existing limitation on his title to the land."

The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with Summit Carbon Solutions' assertion that private companies have long had the ability to survey Iowa land in order to plan future projects.

"To go onto the property and just look for the meets and bounds to make sure that the easement that they're going to seek is where they say it is, that's about as simple as it can be," said Ryan Koopmans, attorney for Summit Carbon Solutions, during oral arguments in October.

The Iowa Supreme Court also affirmed Summit's status as a pipeline company, which has access rights under Iowa Code, and ruled Summit complied with statutory notice requirements. 

"We further hold that the supercritical carbon dioxide to be transported in the pipeline is a 'hazardous liquid' within the meaning of section 479B.2," Waterman wrote. "The district court therefore correctly ruled that the plaintiff is a pipeline company allowed to obtain temporary access for its surveyors onto private property."

Before You Leave, Check This Out