Meeting Public Comments

Nancy Dugan [Select your title]

I have grave concerns about House File 480. The bill seeks to strike the definition of "beneficial use" from section 255B.261 and add the following language to section 255B.265: "The determination of beneficial use shall be made on a casebycase basis, and shall not be based on categories of uses." The explanatory language in the bill makes clear that this language applies to subchapter III, part 4 of chapter 455B. The only time "category" or "categories appears in subchapter III, part 4 is in Iowa Code section 455B.266, Priority allocation. Here is a link to that section: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/455B.266.pdf. Section 455B.266 provides a categorical framework, based upon beneficial use categories, for prioritizing water use during times of drought. House File 480 appears to be based, at least in part, on arguments put forward by the Sierra Club in its June 2024 Water Woes report. Here is a link to that document: https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/202406/WaterWithdrawalReport%20%281%29.pdf. This report includes a South Dakota ethanol facility but does not include two Minnesota ethanol facilities within a tenmile radius of Iowa. Data from the Decatur study is quite old. Based upon my review of a December 5 investor presentation by CapCO2 Solutions, an entity that proposes to make methanol from water and CO2, Dr. Jeff Bonar indicated during his presentation that water use for carbon capture would exceed water use for methanol production. I can only assume that he based his statements upon the Sierra Club study: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MfnIKRGCV6wX5FkhU4TYoavjNA7YEaY/view?ts=67590741&pli=1 (27:30 minute mark). The Sierra Club's estimates diverge from statements and written information from Summit Carbon Solutions regarding water use. See this link: https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2024/03/30/proposedsummitcarbonprojectsettousemuchmorewater/. This is critically important, because my research indicates that companies across the footprint of the Summit Carbon pipeline are increasingly announcing plans to use CO2 to produce efuels and other products, which I believe will require massive amounts of water no one has accounted for. Nonprofits, NGOs, and political organizations that have boldly announced their opposition to the Summit Carbon pipeline have, in lock step, largely avoided these uses and their potentially catastrophic effects on our aquifers and other sources of water.I emailed legislators last week expressing concerns about this issue. No response. Similarly, I reached out to the Iowa Environmental Council expressing my concerns. I was promised a response, but so far, I have heard nothing from this entity.This bill guts the beneficial use model, which I fear may result in an absolute freeforall in the event of a true water emergency. You may argue that the language does not apply to Iowa Code section 255B.266. I do not accept this argument. If you make decisions that call into question or potentially negate Iowa Code section 455B.266 and chaos ensues during a water emergency in Iowa, which I believe is imminent, then that is on you. You are inviting expanded fuel production in Iowa, upon which a global market may be reliant. Any arguments put forward assuming that reasonable discussions will guide water shortages in Iowa are not credible.I would suggest that rather than adding the language you propose to Iowa Code section 455B.265 and deleting the definition of "benefical use" in section 455B.261, you instead strengthen the definition of beneficial use to protect Iowans. See Iowa Code section 455B.262, subsection 2, for potential language: "The general welfare of the people of the state requires that the water resources of thestate be put to beneficial use which includes ensuring that the waste or unreasonable use, orunreasonable methods of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation and protectionof water resources be required with the view to their reasonable and beneficial use in the interest of the people, and that the public and private funds for the promotion and expansionof the beneficial use of water resources be invested to the end that the best interests andwelfare of the people are served." If you want to make a real difference on such a critically important issue, I would suggest that you write legislation requiring entities seeking permits from the IUC, as well as nonprofits, NGOs, and political groups that claim to oppose such projects and seek to intervene, to provide full and complete investor/funding information so that critical conflicts of interest can be identified by governing bodies and the general public. In my opinion, your failure to recognize this critical need and take necessary steps long ago now leaves the people of the U.S. in grave danger of dire water shortages. And once again, that is on you.