The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled against the Iowa Northern Railway Company in a dispute over whether federal law prevents local drainage authorities from forcing the railroad to replace an aging culvert under its tracks. In a significant decision for local infrastructure projects, the state’s highest court determined that the proposed drainage upgrade constitutes only an “incidental effect” on rail operations, thus falling outside the scope of federal preemption.
The case centers on Joint Drainage District Nos. 6 and 56, managed by the boards of supervisors for Floyd and Cerro Gordo counties. The district sought to replace a century-old, deteriorating stone box culvert beneath Iowa Northern’s main rail line near Nora Springs. The existing culvert, which handles water flow through a twenty-foot-high embankment, is in poor condition, suffering from blockages and blowouts.
The drainage district opted for a modern solution: installing a new 5.5-foot diameter steel pipe culvert using the “jack and bore” method—a trenchless technique designed to minimize disruption to surface traffic. Iowa Northern sued to stop the project, arguing that the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) of 1995 grants the Surface Transportation Board (STB) exclusive jurisdiction over rail construction and operation, thereby preempting Iowa’s state drainage laws that compel such infrastructure changes.
Lower Courts Sided with the Railroad
The District Court for Floyd County initially agreed with Iowa Northern, issuing a writ of mandamus to prohibit the construction. The court found that boring through the embankment posed a risk of instability that would affect train operations, triggering preemption under the ICCTA. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, relying heavily on the fact that the railroad stated it would halt all train traffic during the construction period due to safety concerns.
However, the Iowa Supreme Court, reviewing the case on further review, disagreed with the lower courts’ interpretation of federal preemption.
Understanding Federal Preemption in Rail Law
Justice McDermott, writing for a unanimous court, analyzed the broad scope of the ICCTA, which grants the STB “exclusive” jurisdiction over rail transportation and construction. State laws are preempted if they fall into two categories: those that act as permitting requirements denying a railroad the ability to operate, or those that regulate matters directly overseen by the STB, such as line construction or operations.
The Supreme Court found that requiring a railroad to install a drainage pipe beneath its line does not fit neatly into either category. Crucially, the court distinguished this case from prior decisions where preemption applied, such as cases involving state tort claims that imposed liability for operational decisions made during emergencies.
The central question became whether the drainage district’s action would “unreasonably burden or interfere with rail transportation.”
The Burden of Proof and Expert Testimony
The court noted that the railroad, as the party asserting the preemption defense, bore the burden of proving that the proposed work created an unreasonable burden.
Iowa Northern’s case rested primarily on the testimony of its engineers, who expressed fears that the boring equipment might strike the irregular stones of the century-old culvert, potentially causing the embankment—and the tracks above—to collapse. They pointed to a catastrophic 2017 derailment in Illinois during a similar installation, which resulted in a $12 million loss, as justification for halting all train traffic during the proposed three-to-seven-day project.
The drainage district countered with robust expert testimony. A geotechnical engineer conducted subsurface tests that mapped the embankment, and a drainage engineer confirmed the need for a lower-elevation pipe for proper water flow. Most compellingly, a trenchless-construction expert, whose company specialized in jack-and-bore methods, testified that his firm had successfully completed about 6,500 similar installations under active rail lines without a single embankment failure or traffic interruption.
This expert dismissed the Illinois derailment as a case of “total incompetence,” explaining that the failure occurred because the contractor allowed the boring auger to advance ahead of the reinforcing pipe casing—a mistake easily avoided by following standard procedure, which the district’s contractor promised to adhere to. Furthermore, the drainage district agreed to move the new culvert an additional four feet away from the old structure as an added safety measure.
Voluntary Halting of Operations Not Enough for Preemption
The Iowa Supreme Court found that the evidence overwhelmingly suggested the project would only have “incidental” effects on rail transport. The court directly rejected the lower courts’ reliance on Iowa Northern’s declaration that it would refuse to run trains during construction.
“A railroad can’t manufacture a claim of preemption by voluntarily choosing to halt operations in response to a proposed drainage improvement project,” the opinion stated. If the work can be done safely, the decision to stop service becomes a mere business choice, not a necessity dictated by external interference. Allowing railroads to veto necessary state infrastructure projects simply by declaring they won’t operate during construction would create an “unreasonable burden… on farming—not railroading.”
The Court concluded that this situation resembled routine crossing disputes, which are generally resolved in state courts and do not impede rail operations or pose undue safety risks when standard procedures are followed. The writ of mandamus was dissolved, the Court of Appeals decision was vacated, and the District Court judgment was reversed, allowing the drainage district to proceed.