- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Navigator Heartland Greenway LLC v. Emmet County
Collection
Navigator Heartland Greenway LLC v. Emmet County
Navigator Heartland Greenway LLC v. Emmet County ↗
3:23-cv-03013N.D. Iowa4 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
10/20/2023
Stipulation
Joint stipulation for dismissal without prejudice filed.
On the same day that Navigator CO2 <a href="https://navigatorco2.com/press-releases/heartland-greenway-project-update">announced</a> that it had decided to cancel its carbon dioxide pipeline project (known as the Heartland Greenway project), the company joined in filing stipulations of dismissal without prejudice of its lawsuits challenging Iowa county laws that would have regulated the pipeline. The company cited “the unpredictable nature of the regulatory and government processes involved, particularly in South Dakota and Iowa,” as the reason for the cancellation.
09/13/2023
Decision
Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
The federal district court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed individual county supervisors from an interstate carbon dioxide pipeline developer’s lawsuit challenging an Iowa county’s ordinance regulating hazardous liquid pipelines. The court denied a motion to dismiss the board of supervisors as a defendant. The court also dismissed two of the plaintiff’s five claims—(1) a tortious interference with contracts and prospective business advantages claim and (2) an inverse condemnation claim.
04/12/2023
Complaint
Complaint filed.
The developer of a proposed interstate pipeline that would transport captured carbon dioxide across Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota from emitting facilities to storage filed lawsuits in federal court in Iowa challenging two counties’ zoning ordinances that the developer said unlawfully usurped federal and state regulatory authority. The complaint asserted that both federal and state law preempted the ordinances and sought a declaration that the ordinances had no effect because they were unlawful exercises of power. The developer also asserted claims of inverse condemnation and tortious interference with contractual relationships and prospective business advantages. The developer sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the counties from enforcing or implementing the ordinances, similar ordinances, or any other requirement that would regulate any aspect of the project, including safety, location, or routing.