Meeting Public Comments

Nancy Dugan [Select your title]

HF 480: I previously submitted comments regarding HF 480. I also sent an email to Sierra Club staff and legislators on February 28. The bulk of that email is copied and pasted below.I am doing some research on House File 480. I listened in on the subcommittee meeting this week, and I have also just listened to your lunch and learn on House File 480. I had a few questions for you about this bill. Here is a link to the lunch and learn: https://www.facebook.com/IowaSierraClub/videos/1171117704738750/.Here is a link to House File 480: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=91&ba=hf%20480.Before I get to my questions on House File 480, I wanted to first address another, potentially related issue. Bold Alliance (Bold Education Fund) signed a Community Benefits Agreement with Tallgrass/Trailblazer in March of 2024, which paved the way for that CO2 pipeline in Nebraska. The Nebraska Farmers Union and several other entities signed on to this agreement. Here is a link to the agreement: https://climate.law.columbia.edu/sites/climate.law.columbia.edu/files/content/CBAs/Trailblaze%20CO2%20pipelineCommunityBenefitAgreement.pdf.Tallgrass has submitted a permit application and other documents to the Iowa Utilities Commission. You can find those documents here: https://efs.iowa.gov/search/documents?searchRun=Document&docketNumber=HLP20250001On page 6 of the Tallgrass/Trailblazer Community Benefits Agreement, Item 15, the following language appears: "15) Bold will not make any public statements or announcements in opposition to the Project and will not interfere in the development of the Project, so long as Trailblazer is in compliance with the Community Agreement."Bold and the Sierra Club have worked handinhand on the Summit Carbon pipeline. To the best of my knowledge, neither the national office of the Sierra Club nor the Nebraska Sierra Club office have made any statements about the Tallgrass/Trailblazer CO2 pipeline. Similarly, to the best of my knowledge, other environmental groups who work closely with Bold and the Sierra Club on the Summit Carbon pipeline have remained silent on the Tallgrass/Trailblazer CO2 pipeline. This includes Food & Water Watch, the Science & Environmental Health Network, Dakota Resource Council (ND), Dakota Rural Action (SD), and Cure (MN).The Sierra Club Iowa chapter has actively advised landowners regarding bills related to CO2 pipelines in Iowa. House File 480 is listed among these bills. See this link: https://www.sierraclub.org/iowa/february2025newsletter#Energy.Given the fact that the Trailblazer pipeline project now extends into Iowa, I would like to know if Bold's agreement not to interfere in the Trailblazer project so long as Trailblazer is in compliance with the Community Benefits Agreement affects the Sierra Club in its lobbying efforts on behalf of the Summit Carbon pipeline. Obviously, if legislation is promoted that adversely affects the Summit project, it may also adversely affect the Trailblazer pipeline.With regard to House File 480, in your lunch and learn today, you stated that House File 480 clarifies the definition of beneficial use. My reading of the bill indicates that it removes the definition of benefical use. The opening language in Iowa Code section 455B.261 states the following: "455B.261 Definitions. As used in this part 4 of subchapter III, unless the context otherwise requires:" Here is a link to that section: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/455B.261.pdf.You have indicated that the language found in section 455B.262, which you read aloud during the lunch and learn, would serve as the new definition for part 4 of subchapter III. That language is as follows: "2. The general welfare of the people of the state requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use which includes ensuring that the waste or unreasonable use, or unreasonable methods of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation and protection of 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 expansion of the beneficial use of water resources be invested to the end that the best interests and welfare of the people are served."This language is not listed under the definitions in Iowa Code section 455B.261. In my opinion, it is explanatory text and is not a definition. As such, I do not understand how we can be assured that it will be uniformly applied to part 4, subchapter III of Iowa Code chapter 455B.In your lunch and learn presentation, you identified 9 water permit categories in DNR water permit applications. My research indicates there is also a catchall category, labeled "Other." Please see this link: https://programs.iowadnr.gov/wacop/PermitApplication/Category?versionID=34772. You also indicated that these categories were "made up" and do not appear in the Code of Iowa.Iowa Code chapter 455B.266 contains the only categorical use list I can find in subchapter III, part 4 of this chapter. Here is a link to that section: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/455B.266.pdf. This list is used to govern water allocation during times of drought. I consider it to be an extremely important protection. While it does not precisely match the 10 categories of use found in WACOP permitting information, it appears to be largely based on these categories of use (see subsection 2, paragraphs a. through i).During today's lunch and learn, you stated that the DNR does not look at quantity of water to be used when considering a permit. This conflicts with my research, some of which is outlined in this article: https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2023/09/01/exclusivesummitcarbonllcsseekwellpermitsiniowa/.Your statement may also conflict with a recent decision related to Bloody Run Creek, when an administrative law judge advised the DNR to consider quality in addition to quantity when assessing water permits: https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/11/14/administrativelawjudgeissuesdecisiononbloodyruncreekwaterpermit/. During the lunch and learn, apparently referencing the proposed new language to be added to Iowa Code section 455B.265, you stated that "each permit would have to be evaluated by the DNR on a oneonone basis."That is not what the proposed new language states. The proposed new language reads as follows: "The determination of benefical use shall be made on a casebycase basis, and shall not be based on categories of uses." I am concerned that this broad language, which does not reference permits, may adversely affect or negate Iowa Code section 455B.266.I am baffled as to why you refer to the explanatory text in Iowa Code section 455B.262 as the new definition of "beneficial use" but do not advocate for the placement of a new, improved definition of beneficial use in Iowa Code section 455B.261, which, as best I can tell, would then definitively apply to subchapter III, part 4. In this way, if the definition of benefical use was enhanced and properly placed in the definitions section for subchapter III, part 4, it seems to me that the language you seek to add to section 455B.265 would be unnecessary. I consider the language proposed for addition to section 455B.265 to be vague and potentially open to misinterpretation. That is why I am so concerned about Iowa Code section 455B.266.