A Webster County landowner has lost his appeal of a jury-awarded condemnation award he was granted after a portion of his land was taken through an eminent domain easement to build an oil pipeline.

Keith Puntenney, of Boone, owns 80 acres of land in rural Webster County near Harcourt. In 2016, when the Dakota Access Pipeline was being constructed as a 1,172-mile line from northwest North Dakota to south central Illinois, the Iowa Utilities Board granted Dakota Access LLC the right to use eminent domain to acquire a permanent pipeline easement across a section just under an acre in area.

According to the ruling from the Iowa Court of Appeals, filed on Friday, a Webster County commission had initially awarded Puntenney $16,300 in compensation for the eminent domain easement onto his property in August 2016.

Puntenney then appealed the award to the District Court, arguing that his 80 acres of land had been worth at least $11,500 per acre for a total of $897,000, and he believed that the pipeline easements reduced his land’s value by at least 30 percent, or $269,100.

During a jury trial, Dakota Access brought in two certified appraisers to testify on appraisals of Puntenney’s land before and after the easement. One valued the land at $7,900, while the other put the value at $5,500. The jury awarded Puntenney $7,900.

After the District Court denied him a new trial, Puntenney filed an appeal to the Iowa Court of Appeals, arguing that certain evidence about land values and post-taking damages were excluded in the trial.

The land value was determined by the corn suitability rating, or CSR, which is a measurement developed in the early 1970s to determine potential soil productivity based on a number of factors.

The problem with valuing the land with the CSR, Puntenney said, is that it was developed as an index of productivity designed to be used for property tax purposes only.

The Iowa Court of Appeals also ruled that the District Court was right in excluding evidence on alleged damages during this proceeding because damages fall under a different subsection of Iowa Code than the compensation of taking the land, so damages should be addressed in a separate proceeding.

Puntenney said that the language in the current Iowa Code regarding damages is vague and there isn’t any case law setting precedent on defining what qualifies as post-taking damages, like if it’s defined by time period or proximity to where the pipeline runs through the ground.

During the trial, Dakota Access argued that within three years of the pipeline construction, any damage to the soil during construction would essentially “heal itself,” Puntenney said. However, looking at his land nearly five years later, that is not the case.

The mixing of the topsoil and the clay underneath has caused irreparable damage, Puntenney said. Crews working in heavy rain also caused extra compaction of the soil, causing even more permanent damage to the soil.

“What’s broken can’t be fixed,” he said.

Drainage tile was installed incorrectly, causing drainage troubles for several farmers, Puntenney previously told The Messenger.

In the last five years, Puntenney has spent tens of thousands of dollars to drain excess water off of his farmland.

“The right-of-way (of the easement) is so compacted, it’s like a road,” he said.

Since the construction of the pipeline in late 2016, Puntenney estimates he’s lost about 60 bushels an acre of soil productivity on his property because of the damage caused by the pipeline construction.

Even though in his appeals, Puntenney is standing up to oil companies with resources to fight him every step of the way, he still feels like it’s the right thing to do.

“It’s the only way you can prove to the Iowa Legislature that the statute as drafted is wrong and unfair, and doesn’t accomplish a fair compensation for the taking of land under the guise that it is for the public benefit,” he said.

After the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s ruling, the next step would be to file a further review application with the Iowa Supreme Court to see if Iowa’s highest legal authority will take up the case. Puntenney said he has not decided yet if he is going to take that route.