Eighth Circuit Reaffirms Federal Preemption Over Local Pipeline Ordinances

July 1, 2025

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion discussing the Pipeline Safety Act’s (PSA’s) preemption over local ordinances seeking to regulate pipeline safety — a decision that provides important guidance for pipeline operators planning interstate carbon capture projects.

In Couser, et al. v. Shelby Cnty., Iowa, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment enjoining two Iowa counties’ attempts to impose pipeline setback, emergency response and abandonment rules on a proposed interstate pipeline project.

According to the Eighth Circuit’s opinion, the case stemmed from Summit Carbon Solutions’ desire to build a carbon capture pipeline through five states. The pipeline will eventually transport captured CO2 from ethanol plants and some fertilizer plants to underground wells in North Dakota. Part of the pipeline’s approved route passes through Shelby and Story Counties in Iowa.

Reacting to Summit’s planned pipeline, the counties passed two pipeline-related ordinances, which imposed setback, emergency response plan and local permitting requirements. Shelby County also added an abandonment provision, while Story County added a trenchless construction requirement. One ordinance called out Summit by name. And while the Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) granted Summit a permit to build its pipeline along the proposed route, the counties sought to impose restrictions on Summit. Shelby County sent letters to landowners who executed easements with Summit threatening fines and lawsuits to dissolve the easements.

Summit and William Couser, a farmer in Story County, sued the counties in individual lawsuits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that federal and state law preempted the counties’ ordinances. In both cases, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of Summit and permanently enjoined the counties from enforcing the ordinances. The counties appealed, arguing that their ordinances did not constitute safety “standards,” which the PSA preempts. Instead, the counties argued that the ordinances constituted safety “considerations,” which the PSA does not preempt.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appeals court concluded that the PSA preempted the ordinances’ setback, emergency response and abandonment provisions. It observed that the setback requirements applied to developed and rural areas, undercutting the counties’ claims of “aesthetic” concerns. The setback requirements improperly regulated safety “at their core.” The court noted that the counties inappropriately adopted emergency response plan requirements above and beyond those required by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). As for Shelby County’s abandonment provision, the court concluded that PHMSA’s oversight extends to abandoned and discontinued pipelines. Based on these conclusions, the Eighth Circuit reasserted that the PSA precludes state decision-making in the area of pipeline safety “altogether.”

The counties’ pipeline company and landowner permitting requirements did not fare better. The court noted that while the IUC possessed the “authority to implement certain controls over hazardous liquid pipelines,” the counties sought to impose requirements “inconsistent with state law.” As a result, state law preempted them.

Finally, the court addressed Story County’s trenchless construction requirement, which mandated trenchless pipeline construction in “critical natural resource and buffer areas.” The Story County ordinance, however, could prohibit an IUC permit calling for alternative protection or construction methods. That possibility, the court held, was inconsistent with state law and preempted.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision establishes guidance for pipeline operators planning interstate carbon capture projects. While it is important for operators to work with state and local entities to provide transparency, a locality may not delay or otherwise interfere with the construction of such projects. Disputes regarding local laws and ordinances often arise, and operators must be prepared to assert field and conflict preemption under the PSA (49 U.S.C. § 60101 et seq.) and state law. Doing so will help ensure a pipeline operator’s ability to meet important internal and commercial deadlines.

Subscribe