Conservation board approves proceeding on USG purchase agreement for Big Hollow mineral rights

At its July 1 meeting, the Des Moines County Conservation Board approved proceeding with a purchase agreement that would allow USG to acquire mineral rights beneath the Big Hollow Recreation Area, contingent on any proceeds being deposited into a conservation reserve fund.

Chris Lee, who presented the proposed agreement to the board, said the option covers about 148 acres at the east/upper end of the public lake and would price mineral rights at $1,500 per acre. "It's just a purchase agreement," Lee said, adding USG would have one year to determine how much of the area it wanted and that the county would still follow its real-estate sale process, including any required public hearing and resolution.

The board and staff emphasized that the purchase agreement does not transfer surface ownership at signing. A staff member advising the board noted, "A sale of mineral rights is a sale of real property," and said the county must follow standard public-notice and sale procedures if the transaction advances. Counsel/technical staff also cautioned that the agreement's language granting USG an undefined option to buy up to 10 acres of surface land in the future raised procedural and notice concerns.

Board members and staff highlighted federal constraints on the land. Lee said much of Big Hollow is encumbered by Land and Water Conservation Fund restrictions and that the National Park Service had reviewed the draft contract. The NPS signaled that if USG ever exercised a surface-purchase right that triggered a conversion, the agency would require a process to approve the sale and arrange replacement parkland.

A committee member who summarized the meeting's executive summary said the board approved proceeding with the USG agreement "contingent on proceeds from the sale being deposited into the conservation reserve fund," and clarified that while the conservation department manages Big Hollow, the county owns the property.

That ownership point fed a recurring dispute in the discussion: whether revenues from any sale can be effectively earmarked for conservation. The committee member warned supervisors retain legal control over county revenue and could redirect funds to the county's general basic fund. Lee said he would check an attorney general opinion cited in the discussion to clarify whether supervisors can sell property or reassign proceeds that the Conservation Board has historically retained for park use.

Public-safety and operational concerns surfaced during questioning. One committee member asked whether staff had asked USG about blasting schedules and whether vibrations could disturb campers; the speaker suggested the county negotiate operational limits or notice provisions to avoid activity during peak campsite use. Staff and other board members recommended contract language that would permit soil borings or staged access for testing without giving the buyer an unfettered right to purchase surface land.

Speakers also discussed logistical constraints if USG later selected a surface location: potential landlocked parcels, the need for easements and road or utility access, and the county's capacity to require and manage those easements. Staff noted that if the purchase proceeded, federal funding encumbrances and county real-estate rules would both factor into the county's ability to approve surface acquisitions.

Board members directed staff to follow up with USG and to research the cited legal authority and contract language to ensure the county can meet public-notice requirements, preserve options to deny surface purchases where federal restrictions apply, and clarify how proceeds would be handled. Lee said staff would look into the attorney general opinion and bring suggested edits and additional information back to the board.

The board did not record a roll-call vote in the discussion text; the executive summary read into the record states the board approved proceeding with the purchase agreement under the stated contingency. The purchase agreement gives USG a one-year option window; if exercised, the company would obtain perpetual underground mining rights and limited future surface-purchase options subject to county and federal approvals.

Next steps include staff legal review of the contract wording, confirmation of Land and Water Conservation Fund implications with the National Park Service, and additional drafting to limit or define any future surface-purchase option before any sale could close.