The “Incidental Interference” Rule
Overview
For years, local governments and utility companies have faced a common obstacle: the “Railroad Veto.” If a county needed to lay a water pipe or a tech company wanted to run fiber-optic cables under a set of tracks, the railroad company could often say “no,” claiming that federal law protected them from any local interference. However, a recent landmark ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court just changed the game.
The focus on today’s article is on what you need to know about how this decision impacts drainage districts and other local infrastructure developments, and what it means for the rest of the country – particularly Midwest agriculture.
Background
The case started in Floyd and Cerro Gordo Counties. A local drainage district needed to install a new, 5.5-foot-wide steel pipe (a culvert) under a railroad embankment to prevent flooding on local farmland. The railroad, Iowa Northern Railway, sued to block the project. They argued that:
- It was “inherently unsafe.”
- Federal law – specifically the ICCTA (Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act) – gives the federal government exclusive power over railroads, meaning the state had no right to tell them what to do.
The “Jack and Bore” Solution
The drainage district planned to use a method called “jack and bore.” Instead of digging a massive trench through the tracks and stopping trains, they use a machine to tunnel underneath while the tracks stay perfectly in place.
The Iowa Supreme Court sided with the local government. The justices ruled that as long as the work only causes “incidental interference” (basically, a minor inconvenience that doesn’t stop trains from running), the railroad cannot use federal law as a “blanket veto” to stop local progress.
Implications
The case isn’t just about one drainage pipe in Iowa. This ruling sets a precedent that will likely have wide-reaching effects:
- Better Infrastructure: Local boards can now move forward with water mains, gas lines, and flood prevention projects that only cause incidental interference without being tied up in years of railroad litigation.
- Faster Internet: Companies looking to expand high-speed fiber-optic networks across the state now have a clearer legal path to cross railroad tracks using trenchless technology.
- Protecting Property: The court sent a clear message: Railroad tracks shouldn’t act as “dams” that flood private property. Railroads have a duty to let water flow naturally.
The Difference from “Blocked Crossings” Cases
The Iowa Supreme Court explained the difference between the facts of the case and blocked crossing cases arising from state attempts to legislate how long a train can block a crossing. Laws that fine railroads for blocking traffic (like the 10-minute rules in some states) are usually struck down because they tell the railroad how to run its business – how long the trains can be and how fast they can go. However, putting a pipe 20 feet under the tracks doesn’t change how the train operates. It’s a property issue, not a “transportation” issue.
Broader Impact
Iowa is a leader in “drainage districts,” which are essential for keeping Midwestern farmland productive. This ruling provides a roadmap for other states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Indiana to challenge railroad obstruction.
At the federal level, Congress is also paying attention. New bills like the RAIL Act are being discussed in 2025 to set strict deadlines for railroads to approve utility crossings, mirroring the common-sense approach the Iowa Supreme Court just took.
The bottom line is that “blanket veto” is over. If a local project follows safety standards and doesn’t stop the trains, the railroad has to cooperate.
The case is Iowa Northern Railway Co. v. Floyd County Board of Supervisors, No. 24-0509, 2025 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 102 (Iowa Sup. Ct. Dec. 19, 2025).