## Facts

- Dakota Access, LLC sought an Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) permit under Iowa Code chapter 479B to construct and operate the Iowa segment of an underground crude-oil pipeline and to obtain eminent-domain authority for necessary easements.
- After a contested administrative proceeding, the IUB found the project promoted the “public convenience and necessity” under Iowa Code § 479B.9 and approved eminent domain where easements could not be negotiated.
- The IUB found benefits including reduced transportation costs for shippers, potential petroleum-product price effects, safer transport compared to rail for large volumes, construction jobs, and local property-tax revenue.
- The IUB acknowledged adverse impacts on agricultural land and landowners but concluded the benefits outweighed the harms.
- Landowners, landowner associations, and the Sierra Club petitioned for judicial review, challenging the public-convenience finding, the statutory authority to condemn agricultural land under Iowa Code §§ 6A.21 and 6A.22, and the constitutionality of the takings under the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions.
- The district court affirmed the IUB; the challengers appealed, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sierra Club and organizational plaintiffs had standing to seek judicial review of the IUB’s permit and eminent-domain decisions.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the IUB’s finding that the pipeline promoted the public convenience and necessity under Iowa Code § 479B.9.
3. Whether Iowa Code §§ 6A.21 and 6A.22 barred eminent domain over agricultural land for this pipeline.
4. Whether eminent domain for the pipeline violated the public-use requirement of the Iowa Constitution or the Fifth Amendment.
5. Whether the IUB’s determinations on individual landowner objections (including route-related impacts) were supported by substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The court held the Sierra Club had standing based on members’ affected interests and participation in the agency proceeding.
- The court upheld the IUB’s public convenience and necessity determination as supported by substantial evidence and within the agency’s delegated discretion.
- The court held Iowa Code §§ 6A.21 and 6A.22 did not bar condemnation because Dakota Access was a company under IUB jurisdiction and the pipeline operated as a common carrier.
- The court held the takings satisfied constitutional public-use requirements; a regulated common-carrier pipeline is a traditional public-use type of infrastructure even if many benefits occur beyond Iowa or are indirect.
- The court upheld the IUB’s resolution of individual landowner claims under substantial-evidence review.
- The judgment affirming the IUB was affirmed; separate opinions concurred in part and dissented in part, and another justice dissented.

## Legal Principles

- In judicial review of agency action, factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence; legal and constitutional questions are reviewed for correction of errors at law, with deference to agency interpretations when the legislature has vested interpretive authority, absent an interpretation that is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.
- An organization has standing where it represents members who are directly affected and who satisfy participation-related requirements for the administrative proceeding being reviewed.
- The IUB may weigh benefits and detriments in determining “public convenience and necessity” under Iowa Code § 479B.9; a decision is not unsupported by substantial evidence merely because the record allows a fair difference of opinion.
- Iowa Code §§ 6A.21 and 6A.22 do not categorically prohibit condemnation of agricultural land for hazardous-liquid pipelines regulated by the IUB when the pipeline company falls within statutory exceptions, including company-under-IUB-jurisdiction and common-carrier status.
- For constitutional takings, public use may include traditionally regulated infrastructure (including common-carrier transportation facilities) even when owned or operated by a private entity and even when benefits are diffuse or cross state borders.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the IUB’s permit and eminent-domain approval for the Dakota Access pipeline, concluding that the agency’s public-convenience finding was supported by substantial evidence, the post–Kelo agricultural-land restrictions did not bar condemnation for a common-carrier pipeline under IUB jurisdiction, and the takings satisfied state and federal public-use requirements.


Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 928 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2019)