Mills County hearing: residents press board to block eminent domain as Trailblazer outlines short pipeline route
Loading...
Summary
Residents urged Mills County supervisors to oppose eminent domain and demand strong local safeguards as an inspector-services presenter described Trailblazer’s proposal for 2.43 miles of 8-inch pipe and 0.61 miles of 24-inch pipe through the county and explained the county-inspector role.
Dan Stanley, a Mills County resident who said he has 37 years of emergency-management experience, used public comment to urge the Board of Supervisors to block eminent domain for carbon-dioxide pipelines and to require strong local safeguards if the project proceeds. "But here's the overarching question is who bears the risk and who profits?" Stanley asked, arguing that federal tax incentives primarily benefit private companies while residents and farmers shoulder land disruption and long-term liability.
An inspector-services representative later briefed the board on the Trailblazer Pipeline project and the county-inspector role on behalf of the board. "Trailblazer proposes to construct 2.43 miles of 8 inch pipeline and 0.61 miles of 24 inch pipeline in Mills County," the presenter said, and added that Trailblazer "did not request eminent domain" at the IUC proceeding. The presentation described launcher/receiver stations, a mainline metering station near the river crossing and a string of required documents and pre/post-construction records that the county inspector would collect and forward to the board.
Jan Norris, a Montgomery County resident who attended the Iowa Utilities Commission hearing Dec. 2, summarized the IUC record: Tallgrass will provide a trunk line connection and Trailblazer expects to tie into that line after crossing the Missouri River. Norris said landowner royalties were estimated at about $3,300 annually (prorated per landowner) and that the IUC appeared likely to attach permit conditions. She also said the company estimated about 151 construction workers but did not specify overall construction duration.
Speakers raised emergency-response concerns. Stanley and others warned that CO2 is colorless and heavier than air and can collect in low areas, incapacitating residents and first responders; they urged setbacks from homes, schools and businesses, readily available shutoff valves, financial assurance, and local emergency-planning collaboration with fire departments. The inspector-services presenter described the inspector’s scope as limited to agricultural-land condition (pre/post photographs, tile and drainage mapping, documentation of compaction and restoration) and noted the county would be invoiced by the pipeline for inspection costs.
Board members and residents asked operational questions the company had not fully answered in the hearing record, including details about pipe-wall thickness, water use during construction and where personnel would be staged along the route. The presenter said federal oversight (PHMSA) covers pipeline safety and that the county inspector is not a certified federal pipeline inspector but would document pre/post conditions required under state guidance referenced during the presentation.
Next steps noted to the board: Trailblazer may seek county road-crossing permits; the county could designate a county inspector and expect the pipeline to provide the specified documentation and to pay inspection invoices. Residents were encouraged to engage with the IUC record and local permitting process to preserve landowner protections and to press for detailed emergency-response planning.
