A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper
The time has come to “be curious.” For years, we have been warned to not believe everything we see on Facebook. Now we live with the added challenge of having to decide if an image is produced by AI.
We must enter this current political environment with eyes wide open. That means reading a wide variety of news sources. Now is not the time to be indifferent. The administration lies every day and our Democracy is being shredded. We must fact-check all the news we consume. This is crucial to combat misinformation and disinformation. Trump and his enablers are counting on us to remain uninformed and complacent.
Pegg Havens, Storm Lake
I can’t imagine any farmer hoping that a pipeline will get installed across their farm. That said, I think we need the carbon pipeline anyway.
I was encouraged to hear that there is a proposal in the Iowa legislature to widen the pipeline route, in an effort to work with landowners willing to sell. That’s a great step, in my opinion, but the simple truth is that a pipeline of this magnitude simply cannot be built without at least some use of eminent domain.
Some would say that it is wrong to use eminent domain for the construction of a private project, but I argue that this pipeline would bring benefits to our communities at large.
When the Poet ethanol plant was built near me by Emmetsburg, it did not just reward its owners and investors. It brought jobs, children into our schools and customers into our local businesses. It improved the local corn price, which provided more money for farmers to spend throughout our community. It reduced the need for taxpayer bailouts. Our grocery stores and gas stations are also private businesses, but few would argue, especially in small towns where they’ve been lost, that they don’t have a public benefit.
That said, farmers and landowners MUST be fairly compensated for the use of their land, and our state needs a vigorous regulatory program in place to insure the safety of area residents. We CANNOT allow this to be built and then simply ignore it.
Pipelines are by far the safest way to transport almost anything in bulk, and they are already transporting far more dangerous products than carbon underneath our soils, such as anhydrous ammonia and natural gas. Because of the sheer volume of product that would be moved through this pipeline, however, safety protocols are vital.
Our Palo Alto County supervisors have done a great job of addressing some of these concerns, such as hiring (if construction were to begin) a firm to stay on the construction site and monitor conditions which would have the authority to stop construction whenever they had safety concerns, or concerns that landowner rights were being disregarded, as apparently occurred during the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The supervisors are also mandating that the pipeline must be installed deep beneath the surface where it would not interfere with the construction or maintenance of our extensive networks of drainage tile to any large degree.
For my part, I was relieved, from the beginning of this proposal, that it was Summit who was proposing the installation of a pipeline through our local area. Our family has worked with Summit for years. We sold them a plot of land to construct a hog facility, and Summit has always been responsive to our concerns and an honest business partner. Of course, management can change and businesses are sold, so it is still critical to have strong rules and regulations around this project. I think we are actually lucky that this would be a new pipeline, designed to carry carbon, as I would surmise that building new adds a margin of safety over the re-purposing of an existing pipeline.
Criticism of this project has included that it’s funded by “big money and big business.” I would counter that that does not make it inherently bad, just that we need to go in with eyes wide open. Some of the big money being spent against its construction is using landowner rights as a flashpoint to ignite opposition, when their real aim is to discourage anything that supports liquid fueled vehicles, in the hope we are forced to move more quickly to electric cars.
Crop prices are in the tank, demand is iffy, and productivity keeps rising. We can ask for an acreage set aside program, beg for money from our fellow taxpayers or we can be proactive and work to increase demand for our corn.
Ethanol plants have been a major boon to our rural economy over the past 20 years (and continue to be), but they’re not keeping up with the increasing corn supply any longer. New plant construction or expansion is only occurring in areas where carbon capture is possible, such as in Nebraska, where they were able to re-purpose an existing pipeline, or areas of the eastern Corn Belt where the local geology lends itself to carbon capture.
Nationwide adoption of E15/Unleaded 88 would sure help our corn market, but I’m convinced that having our local plants connected to carbon capture project will be much more important locally. It costs money to ship grain, and building plants in Nebraska and Indiana will have limited benefit for us here. We need increased corn demand locally, and I don’t see that happening significantly without this carbon pipeline. Carbon capture may help our environment, and that’s great; but even if it doesn’t, if we want to stay profitable, we need to strive to give the customer what they want, and there is a real demand for ethanol with a lower carbon score.
To see more on the pipeline and carbon capture, go to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkHtrQipyD8
Fred Wirtz, West Bend
In one of your Jan. 23 editorials, would-be governor Randy Feenstra is quoted thusly: “I stand with ICE. I stand with Kristi Noem.”
In other words, he stands FOR unbridled federal authority, cruelty and xenophobia. Put another way, AGAINST the United States Constitution.
Duly noted.
Let’s see who Iowa sides with next chance we get to stand up and be counted.
Mike Wellman, Des Moines
While Iowa’s public universities support one in every 10 jobs and generate billions of dollars in economic impact statewide, legislation has been introduced that would impose yet another layer of oversight on the Regent institutions.
House Study Bill 541 would require Iowa’s public universities to report an incentivized funding model to the General Assembly and the governor, using metrics such as graduation rates, degrees awarded in high-demand fields, postgraduate employment and income, and the number of graduates who stay in Iowa after graduation.
Those measures already tell a compelling story, and the information is readily available. Graduates of the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa fuel Iowa’s workforce in health care, education and STEM fields, strengthening communities across the state. Yet legislators frequently criticize the Regent universities while placing increasing constraints on their operations.
What Iowans need are clear, accessible facts about the value and success of their public universities — and what those institutions need in return is stable, realistic financial support, not micromanagement, to continue delivering results for Iowa.
According to the Iowa Board of Regents, the state’s public universities are essential to meeting Iowa’s workforce needs, retaining talent and building critical skills. Graduates of Regents universities fuel Iowa’s economy, filling high-demand roles in health care, education and STEM fields that are vital to communities across the state.
The economic impact is substantial. A Regents-commissioned study shows that Iowa’s public universities generated a $14.9 billion economic impact in FY2021–22 and supported one out of every 10 jobs statewide. That impact is felt county by county, underscoring how deeply these institutions are woven into Iowa’s local and regional economies.
Beyond job creation, the Regent universities deliver a strong return on investment for their primary stakeholders — students, taxpayers and society as a whole. The study evaluates both direct economic impact and long-term investment outcomes, demonstrating that public support for higher education pays dividends in higher earnings, increased tax revenues, and a stronger, more resilient Iowa economy.
The state offers incentives to encourage graduates to build careers in Iowa. The Iowa Workforce Grant & Incentive Program provides financial support for students pursuing training for high-demand jobs, along with incentive payments for graduates who accept qualifying in-state employment.
In addition, the Iowa Board of Regents’ Recent Alumni Career Outcomes dashboard publicly reports employment and wage outcomes, offering policymakers and the public clear evidence of the economic value of Iowa’s public universities.
Graduate retention by institution (how many stay in Iowa, long term)
The percentage of graduates who remain in Iowa varies by institution and is strongly influenced by the in-state composition of each student body:
Sector and regional employment impact (what graduates do and where they serve)
Regent university graduates play distinct and complementary roles across Iowa’s economy:
Economic contribution of Regent alums (why this matters economically)
Graduates of Iowa’s three Regent universities are concentrated in the state’s highest-need and highest-impact sectors, including education, healthcare, construction, and STEM-related fields. In fiscal year 2021–22:
Major Iowa employers of Regent graduates (who hires them)
Iowa’s public university graduates are employed across a wide range of major employers, including:
Retention by county of origin (why graduates settle where they do)
Graduate employment patterns often reflect students’ original residency:
Counties with the highest concentration of Regent graduates
Graduates of Iowa’s regent universities tend to cluster in counties that align with each institution’s workforce strengths:
Iowans do not need HSB 541, nor do they want legislators determining resident enrollment targets at our public universities. What Iowans do want is legislative action that protects water quality, safeguards the environment, and addresses the real challenges facing communities across the state.
Iowa’s Regent universities do not indoctrinate students, as some lawmakers suggest. They teach students how to think critically, evaluate evidence, and express their views responsibly. Coursework often requires students to demonstrate these skills and defend their reasoning. What is not tolerated is shallow thinking that demeans individuals or undermines the constitutional rights of others.
Public universities power Iowa’s economy, strengthen communities in every corner of the state, and prepare the workforce Iowa depends on. Legislators who invest in them aren’t just funding education — they’re securing Iowa’s future.
Linda Schreiber, Iowa City
HF 2104 is a bill passed by the Iowa House, dealing with the protection of Iowans’ private property rights. Addressing the abuse of eminent domain for carbon oxide pipelines, it was brought about as result of the Summit Carbon proposed project. On “Phase 1”, the original footprint of the project, over 800 parcels of land could be slated for eminent domain seizure if allowed. There will be dozens more parcels in the 14 laterals added in 2023/2024, referred to as “Phase II” of the project. That means hundreds of Iowa property owners are living under this black cloud.
The bill was scheduled for a Senate subcommittee hearing at 8 a.m. Tuesday, Jan 27. With less than 18 hours’ notice, it was impossible for the Iowans who live up to four hours away to attend and speak.
This is by design. The Senate Majority Leader, for the first time in Iowa history, has appointed himself as chair of this subcommittee. The subcommittee vice-chair is a former Summit employee. Both of these men claim that is not a conflict of interest.
None of the three members of the committee are in districts that would be part of the Summit project.
None of their voter constituents are threatened by eminent domain.
Why? Because the majority leader and some other legislators are playing political games, using the protections of Iowans’ private property rights as the football.
And because there’s little integrity left among some of the Iowa legislators.
Kathy Carter, Rockford
Our ICE agency today blithely spins outrageous lies to protect themselves from accountability. That is clear enough with the detention and exile from her home state of a Minneapolis two-year-old, along with her dad.
The pair’s lawyer says the mother was afraid to go get the child from near the family car just returned from the store, with ICE agents prowling around the yard. She stepped inside and decided to let her husband bring the child to her, but ICE agents wouldn’t allow that. Homeland Security claims the mother didn’t want to take care of her child, so the toddler had to be detained and shipped out of state. Which story do you believe, America?
Trump believes that lying is necessary to get to America’s brilliant future “Golden Age.” The Russian communist Lenin taught that lying was “justified” by the goal of getting to a brilliant future where workers would run the Russian economy.
Russian workers agreed to give Lenin temporary dictatorial powers, called the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Unfortunately, this turned Russia into a century-long totalitarian dictatorship by the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Putin.
Trump’s look-alike scenario today could be called the “dictatorship of ICE.”
Kimball Shinkoskey, Woods Cross, Utah
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here