Iowa Northern Railway Company v. Floyd County Board of Supervisors and Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors, acting as Trustees for Joint Drainage District Nos. 6 and 56

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: January 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-0509
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0509 Filed January 9, 2025

IOWA NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

FLOYD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and CERRO GORDO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, acting as Trustees for JOINT DRAINAGE DISTRICT NOS. 6 AND 56, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Colleen Weiland,

Judge.

A joint drainage district appeals the writ of mandamus prohibiting it from

undertaking remedial action on a railroad embankment aimed at improving surface

water drainage. AFFIRMED.

Robert W. Goodwin of Goodwin Law Office, P.C., Ames, for appellants.

Kimberly P. Knoshaug of Lewis, Webster, Van Winkle & Knoshaug, L.L.P.,

Des Moines, for appellee.

Heard by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

A joint drainage district appeals the writ of mandamus prohibiting it from

boring a drainpipe through a railroad embankment to increase surface water

drainage in an adjacent culvert. The sole question on appeal is whether federal

law preempts the remedial action on the embankment. Because the planned

improvement affects railroad transportation under the unique facts of this case, the

ICCTA expressly preempts the joint drainage district from undertaking it. We

therefore affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

This appeal involves competing interests of two parties central to Iowa’s

agricultural economy. The plaintiff, Iowa Northern Railway Company (Iowa

Northern), is a class III short line railroad that operates around 253 miles of track

in this state. It is one of the many small, local freight railroads that help connect

towns and ports that would otherwise be inaccessible to larger, national railroad

networks. See Matthew C. Donahue, Note, Federal Railroad Power Versus Local

Land-Use Regulation: Can Localities Stop Crude-by-Rail in Its Tracks?, 74 Wash.

& Lee L. Rev. Online 146, 178 (2017). The defendant, Joint Drainage District

Nos. 6 and 56 (JDD), is part of the system of drainage districts that help property

owners convert wetlands to productive farmland. See Bd. of Water Works Trs. of

Des Moines v. Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supers., 890 N.W.2d 50, 54 (Iowa 2017). Draining

farm soil increases field access and land value, reduces farm labor and fuel

consumption, and lessens the wear and tear on farming equipment. See Nathan

Vos, Note, Agricultural Drainage and the Des Moines Water Works Lawsuit, 22

Drake J. Agric. L. 109, 123 (2017). 3

The dispute centers on a portion of Iowa Northern’s main line that runs near

Nora Springs on the boundary of Floyd and Cerro Gordo Counties.1 Its tracks run

along a twenty-foot embankment and over a bridge that bypasses West Drive. A

natural waterway runs parallel to West Drive, about fifteen to twenty feet to its

south. The waterway flows east towards the Shell Rock River, passing through

the railroad embankment via a four-foot by six-foot stone box culvert. The culvert

was constructed in the 1870s and extended with concrete in 1944. No significant

maintenance has been performed on it since. A drainage main constructed in 1918

handles drainage near the tracks. Aside from replacing the drainage tile in 1976,

there has been no other major repair or improvement to the main.

In 2011, an adjacent landowner complained about the drainage. An

engineering study conducted in February 2014 described the main as in poor

condition but opined that the capacity appeared to provide adequate drainage with

good surface relief. The study explored three options for improving drainage and

recommended repairing the existing structures. After two public meetings, JDD

rejected the engineer’s recommendation to repair the existing structures and

adopted a plan for improvement that requires installing a new culvert or pipe

through the railroad embankment. Iowa Northern objected to the planned

improvement, favoring the option recommended in the engineering study, which

did not require any incursion into the embankment. Although JDD modified its plan

for improvement several times, the parties never reached an agreement on how to

improve drainage.

1The Floyd County Board of Supervisors and Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors act as trustees for JDD. 4

In May 2019, Iowa Northern petitioned for a writ of mandamus to prevent

JDD from implementing its intended improvements on the railroad embankment.

After a trial in March 2023, the district court concluded that federal law preempts

JDD’s planned improvements. It issued a writ of mandamus directing JDD to stop

the installation.

II. Scope and Standard of Review.

This is an appeal of a mandamus action, which is tried in equity. Iowa Code

§ 661.3 (2019). Thus, our review is de novo. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; Den

Hartog v. City of Waterloo, 847 N.W.2d 459, 461 (Iowa 2014). “We give weight to

the district court’s fact-findings but are not bound by them.” Hawk Eye v. Jackson,

521 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Iowa 1994). “The district court’s decision to issue a writ of

mandamus involves the exercise of discretion.” Koenigs v. Mitchell Cnty. Bd. of

Supers., 659 N.W.2d 589, 592 (Iowa 2003). Because preemption requires

interpreting federal law, the court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions for

correction of errors at law. Carroll Airport Comm’n v. Danner, 927 N.W.2d 635,

643 (Iowa 2019).

III. Discussion.

In 1995, Congress enacted the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission

Termination Act (ICCTA) to preempt economic regulation of railroads by the states.

Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 914 N.W.2d 273, 280 (Iowa 2018).

The ICCTA created the Federal Surface Transportation Board (FSTB) and gave it

exclusive jurisdiction over railroad transportation and the construction or operation

of railroad tracks, among other areas. See 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b). The ICCTA also 5

provides that its remedies “with respect to regulation of rail transportation are

exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law.” Id.

Only one Iowa case has considered preemption under the ICCTA. See

Griffioen, 914 N.W.2d 273. The question in Griffioen was whether the ICCTA

preempted property owners’ state-law claims for damages caused by the design

and operation of railroad bridges that failed during a catastrophic flood. Id. at 277.

Surveying cases interpreting the ICCTA, our supreme court observed the statute

“can preempt traditional common-law damage causes of action.” Id. at 283–84. It

also found that the ICCTA appears to protect railroads from tort liability for actions

taken to preserve their own transportation facilities. Id. at 284. On this basis, it

concluded that the ICCTA preempted the property owners’ state-law claims for

damage caused by design and operation of railroad bridges. Id. at 277.

The district court largely relied on Griffioen in concluding that the ICCTA

expressly preempts the JDD from pursuing its improvement plan.2 See id. at 281

n.2 (noting that implied preemption was not at issue on appeal and stating that the

ICCTA “has express preemptive language”).3 JDD tries to distinguish Griffioen

because it involved “a state-law tort claim requir[ing] second-guessing of a

railroad’s operation and management of its own rail lines as opposed to other

2 The district court bolstered its conclusion by analyzing whether the ICCTA impliedly preempts JDD’s improvement plan. See Griffioen, 914 N.W.2d at 291 (Appel, J., dissenting) (“Implied preemption arises only when the intent of Congress to occupy the entire field is ‘clear and manifest.’” (citation omitted)). 3 JDD argues there is a presumption against preemption. But “when a statute

contains an express preemption clause, the Supreme Court has highlighted that ‘we do not invoke any presumption against pre-emption.’” Griffioen, 914 N.W.2d at 281 (quoting Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Tr., 579 U.S. 115, 125 (2016)). 6

activities.” Id. at 278 (holding that such claims are preempted by the ICCTA). In

contrast, JDD argues this dispute involves Iowa Northern’s statutory duty “to build

and construct or rebuild and reconstruct [a] necessary culvert . . . so as not to

obstruct, impede, or interfere with the free flow of the water therein.” Iowa Code

§ 468.109; see also id. § 468.110 (requiring a railroad company to construct

improvements across its right-of-way upon receipt of notice under

section 468.109).

Although the dispute in Griffioen involved a state-law tort claim, the holding

is not limited to claims for monetary damages. As part of its analysis, the Griffioen

court applied the test used by the Fifth Circuit in Franks Investment Co. v. Union

Pacific Railroad, 593 F.3d 404, 406 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc). “The [Franks] test

focuses on whether the legal requirement at issue relates to rail transportation, as

opposed to something else with only incidental effects on rail transportation.”4

Griffioen, 914 N.W.2d at 286. Under the Franks test, “laws, ordinances, and

common-law damage actions challenging where and when railroads placed their

railcars on their transportation lines or how they constructed those lines are

generally preempted.” Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at 283–84 (noting that

the ICCTA can preempt common-law actions for damage “as well as state statutes

that would regulate railroad transportation” (emphasis added)).

This dispute involves constructing an improvement along Iowa Northern’s

main line. While the aim of the improvement is regulating the flow of surface water

4 The ICCTA’s broad definition of “transportation” includes any railroad property,

facilities, instrumentalities, or services “related to the movement of . . . property . . . by rail.” 49 U.S.C. § 10102(9). 7

rather than economic regulation of the railroad, its construction would directly affect

Iowa Northern’s track and the operation of its main line.5 Under these facts, JDD’s

improvement plan relates to rail transportation and is preempted by the ICCTA.

See id. at 279 (“The bridges at issue with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims are . . .

inextricably intertwined with the railroad Defendants’ tracks, which affects rail

transportation.” (alteration in original)); see also Oregon Coast Scenic R.R., LLC

v. Oregon Dep’t of State Lands, 841 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]rack

maintenance and repair are essential to providing transportation over a railway.”);

Texas Cent. Bus. Lines Corp. v. City of Midlothian, 669 F.3d 525, 534 (5th Cir.

2012) (holding that a city grading ordinance and requirement that roads be paved

in concrete were expressly preempted by the ICCTA insofar as the roads

supported railroad transloading and thus local road regulations effectively

managed railway economic decisions); Green Mountain R.R. Corp. v. Vermont,

404 F.3d 638, 642 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that the FSTB, which is “uniquely qualified

to determine whether state law should be preempted” by the ICCTA, has ruled that

“state and local permitting or preclearance requirements (including environmental

requirements) are preempted because by their nature they unduly interfere with

interstate commerce” (cleaned up)); City of Auburn v. United States, 154 F.3d

1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that environmental permitting regulations

amount to economic regulation if they prevent a carrier “from constructing,

acquiring, operating, abandoning, or discontinuing a line”); CSX Transp., Inc. v.

5 JDD claims that construction will not impede railroad operation. Because the record shows that Iowa Northern will not allow any trains to operate during construction due to its impact on track stability and the safety risks inherent with it, the action relates to railroad transportation. 8

City of Plymouth, 92 F. Supp. 2d 643, 659 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (“To the extent the

state law at issue here is viewed as requiring the railroad to undergo substantial

capital improvements, such as upgrading its class of track, relocating its yards, or

upgrading speed along its ‘wyes,’ it is preempted by the ICCTA . . . .”), aff’d, 283

F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2002); Vill. of Big Lake v. BNSF Ry. Co., 382 S.W.3d 125, 130

(Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that a state statute “requiring suitable openings,

ditches, and drains through and along [railroad] roadbeds” was preempted by the

ICCTA).

Because the JDD improvement plan is preempted by the ICCTA, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.