(Radio Iowa) – Members of the Iowa Natural Resource Commission are expressing frustration about the declining level of state spending on wildlife programs, habitat restoration and acquisition of property for hunting and other outdoor activities. The money for those programs comes from the fees for state hunting, fishing and trapping licenses — fees that haven’t been raised since 2019. Uriah (yer-RY-uh) Hansen of Huxley is vice chair of the Natural Resource Commission. “We’ve had the conversations,” Hansen says, “We’ve brought it up and, quite honestly, the cans continue to be kicked down the road.” Hansen says since 2019, inflation has skyrocketed.

“On the flip side, there’s been massive reductions in DNR spending, head count — all these other pieces,” Hansen says. Hanson points to state records which indicate the number of employees in the Department of Natural Resources has dropped at least four-and-a-half percent since 2019. He says the commission had hoped to spearhead a push to raise the fees, but D-N-R staff have told them they need to show evidence of public support — like a survey of outdoor groups — by mid-December. Hansen says given his role on the state commission, he’s been getting plenty of unsolicited input from Iowans.

“The constituents or the users of the public spaces, they’re the ones wanting it, right? This isn’t a broad based tax that’s impacting non-users,” Hansen says. “This is something that those that are going to be directly impacted are the ones that are directly asking for the increase.” Terry Thompson, president of Iowa Great Lakes Fishing Club, spoke at the commission’s meeting his month. He says the state desperately needs to increase the Department of Natural Resources budget — and a five percent increase in hunting and fishing license fees would help.

“Really, sportsmen are willing to do that,” Thompson said. “There’s no doubt it. Everybody that I’ve talked to is way in favor of this license fee increase.” Fred Long of Jefferson says the travel budget for state employees is so constricted the National Wildlife Turkey Federation recently paid to send the state turkey biologist to educational seminars out of state. Long, who is president of the Iowa Conservation Alliance, says all 16 groups in the organization back a five percent hike in hunting and fishing fees.

“It’s important to us that we’re all willing to spend more money,” Long said. An Iowa Department of Natural Resources staff member, however, recently cautioned the commission that any public recommendation they make has to be cleared by the governor’s office. “We have to be cognizant of what the administration’s priorities around government fees, taxes, regulatory costs generally are,” she said.

Nebraska’s Game and Parks Commission has proposed raising their state’s hunting and fishing fees by an average of 14 percent next year. Missouri officials have raised hunting and fishing license rates this year, with significant increases for people who do not live in Missouri. Last year, South Dakota lawmakers approved fee increases for outdoor recreation, including a 66 percent increase in state park entrance licenses for out of staters.

(An Iowa Capital Dispatch report) – The Iowa State Association of Counties is seeking financial assistance from counties for a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Story and Shelby counties’ request for U.S. Supreme Court review of a case against Summit Carbon Solutions.  The association said, in a letter addressed to county boards of supervisors, the case before the court “highlights the importance of local control” and “has the potential to impact all counties nationwide.”  Several counties in southwest Iowa have committed funds for the legal proceedings, including Cass, Adair, Mills, Montgomery, and Page, to name a few.

Iowa State Association of Counties is a nonprofit organization with elected and appointed officials from all 99 counties, with a mission to promote effective and efficient local government.  Leadership with the county association were unable to share up-to-date figures Tuesday as to how many counties have pledged financial support on the amicus brief.

According to the letter, dated Oct. 20, 2025, it will cost the association $25,000 to submit the amicus brief to the court, which is why it is soliciting suggested donations of  $500 from counties to help “cover the cost.”  The association submitted the brief, according to the docket, Nov. 6.

The letter said the brief would be submitted on behalf of the association’s membership and would stress the importance of local control. The letter explained to supervisors that a brief can help the court to “better understand” different arguments and the importance of a case. The briefs can also help in “improving a case’s chance” of being taken up by the Supreme Court.

Story and Shelby counties were each sued by Summit Carbon Solutions — a company that seeks to build a carbon sequestration pipeline across Iowa and several other surrounding states – over local ordinances the counties enacted.  The ordinances included setbacks from structures and local permitting requirements to which Summit would have to adhere to build its pipeline through the counties.

The cases were combined as they worked through the courts. In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, located in Omaha, ruled in favor of Summit and a lower court, that the counties could not impose safety standards on a pipeline that is subject to federal standards. The counties then petitioned the federal appeals court for a rehearing of the case, which was denied, before the county supervisors voted in August to take the issue up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The letter to counties included a summary of the case from Timothy Whipple of Ahlers & Cooney in Des Moines. The summary said the counties seek the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the case because the appellate court decision was “legally wrong and problematic.” The counties allege the decision was wrong because it inquired into the motives of county supervisors when they made the ordinances, created a “vague and unworkable standard” and created a “regulatory void.”

At the center of these arguments, and of the Eighth Circuit Court’s decision, is whether or not state and local governments can consider safety when enacting ordinances or if they may enact safety standards. The summary of the suit said the appellate court’s ruling could “invalidate” a “wide range” of local ordinances. Additional counties in Iowa have also been sued by Summit over their ordinances, but those cases have been put on hold while Story and Shelby counties’ case plays out.

Summit filed requests to resume the other county cases on the argument that regardless of the Supreme Court outcome, counties would be preempted by state law in Iowa from dictating pipeline routes. Summit Carbon Solutions did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday (today).  The brief, submitted on behalf of the Iowa State Association of Counties, said Iowa counties exercise “home rule authority” to govern matters like land use.

“Expansive federal preemption, especially when based on motive, threatens counties’ autonomy,” the brief said. “The Association has a strong interest in vindicating the legitimate policymaking discretion of home rule counties.”

In addition to the association, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Preemption Law Professors and the states of Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont, have submitted briefs in support of the counties’ request for a reevaluation of the case.