Judge rules against Iowa landowners taking on Dakota Access

A Polk County judge rejected arguments Wednesday from 14 landowners in Iowa who contended that builders of the Dakota Access pipeline shouldn't have been allowed to use eminent domain powers to route the underground line through their property against their will.

Attorneys for the landowners said they would appeal within 30 days.

The pipeline starts in North Dakota and ends at a distribution hub in Illinois, crossing 18 Iowa counties on its way.

Despite continued protests and court actions over a missing link in North Dakota as the route crosses the Missouri River, the pipeline is otherwise mostly done - including having been built already on the land owned by the 14 seeking a court to intervene.

However, District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell ruled the case is not moot because the line had yet to carry any oil.

Some landowners argued the pipeline would damage tile drainage systems on their farms, and their attorney asked for it to be removed.

Still, the judge ruled against claims from the landowners that they had not been afforded due process and that - importantly - state regulators should never have conferred on a private company the authority to condemn land for a line that does not directly serve Iowans.

When the three-member Iowa Public Utilities Board issued a final order March 10, 2016, to permit the pipeline, it granted the developer authority to use eminent domain in some cases where it could not negotiate an easement.

Citing Iowa Code in his ruling Wednesday, Judge Farrell wrote that lawmakers 'clearly gave the board authority to grant rights of eminent domain to pipeline companies.”

Bill Hanigan, an attorney for the landowners with the Davis Brown Law Firm, argued the utilities board misinterpreted Iowa law and the takings clause in U.S. Constitution. He argued that Dakota Access does not serve a 'public use” and therefore should not be allowed to force the sale of land from unwilling owners.

'A private, out-of-state company, which doesn't serve Iowans, should not be able to use eminent domain to seize Iowa farmland for the purpose of exporting crude oil,” he said in a statement.