Bill dealing with pipelines, landowner rights headed to Iowa Gov. Reynolds’ desk

DES MOINES — Iowa landowners would have more legal protections against the use of eminent domain for pipeline and other infrastructure projects under legislation that is headed to the governor’s desk and critics warn will threaten Iowa corn farmers and the state’s future economic growth.

In a dramatic vote 12 hours after the legislative day started, the Iowa Senate late Monday passed legislation that would regulate hazardous liquid pipelines and other infrastructure and would restrict the use of eminent domain — the process by which the government seizes land for infrastructure projects.

The bill passed, 27-22, with 13 Republican senators joining 14 Democrats in voting for the bill. One Democrat joined 21 Republicans voting against the bill.

Having previously passed the Iowa House, the proposal now heads to Gov. Kim Reynolds for her consideration.

Reynolds has not taken a public position on eminent domain or pipeline legislation over the past four years. A spokesman said late Monday that the governor’s office is reviewing the bill.

Lawmakers who supported the bill’s passage celebrated it as a protection of Iowans’ private property rights against proposed pipeline projects from private companies.

“This isn’t just a fight about constitutional propriety and authority. It’s also a fight about justice and it’s a fight about truth and it’s a fight about good government,” Sen. Jeff Taylor, a Republican from Sioux Center, said during debate. “And those things are worth fighting for, I think, even if it puts you at odds with the majority of your partisan colleagues.”

The Republicans who voted against the bill asserted that they also support Iowans’ private property rights, but expressed concern that the legislation will hamper economic growth by stifling all types of infrastructure projects — not just pipelines — and alleged the true goal of the bill was to kill a current proposed CO2 pipeline project in Iowa.

“I fear for the intended consequences of this bill,” said Sen. Mike Bousselot, a Republican from Ankeny who introduced his own eminent domain and infrastructure legislation, which was voted down during debate Monday. “And I hope we have a plan. I hope we have a plan for infrastructure, to grow our state, for the jobs … for the farmers that produce the wealth and the great crops and commodities that we rely on.”

If signed into law, House File 639 as passed by the Senate late Monday would, among other provisions:

Evolution of pipeline projects and landowner rights debate in Iowa

The issue of property rights and eminent domain has percolated in the Iowa Legislature for the past four years, ever since three carbon capture pipeline projects were proposed to cross parts of the state. Since then, just one proposed project remains — from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions.

Summit Carbon Solutions has proposed a 2,500-mile CO2 pipeline through five states, including Iowa, to capture the greenhouse gas from ethanol plants and bury it in North Dakota. Defenders of the pipeline project say it will boost Iowa’s ethanol industry and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Regulators on the Iowa Utilities Commission approved a permit for the Iowa section, including granting Summit eminent domain powers. But regulators said construction cannot begin in Iowa until the Dakotas also have approved it.

North Dakota has. But Summit has faced challenges in South Dakota, which recently passed a law banning the use of eminent domain for the project. And South Dakota regulators have twice rejected permits, though Summit says it will try again with a new route.

Summit, in June 2024, said 75 percent of Iowa landowners on the project’s proposed route had signed voluntary easements, and that the company was working to increase that number.

The Iowa House, which has passed eminent domain and pipeline legislation in past years, passed two more this year: House File 639 and House File 943, which would simply prohibit the use of eminent domain for hazardous liquid pipelines on agricultural land.

Last week, a dozen Iowa Republican senators signed a letter saying they would not vote to approve any budget bills until House File 639 was called up for debate and a vote in the chamber.

  Buy Photo

Reaction to the bill’s passage

Dozens of Iowans watched from the Iowa Senate gallery Monday evening as the bill was debated. They mostly represented two groups: Iowa corn growers and farmers who opposed the bill, and landowners who supported the bill’s passage.

A statement from the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, issued shortly after the bill’s passage, said the bill would make it more difficult for Iowa farmers to “unlock huge new markets around the world that are demanding ultra-low carbon ethanol.”

“After enduring the largest two-year income drop in history, farmers are desperate to find new markets. (Carbon capture and sequestration) is the key to unlocking massive new demand for ethanol and corn around the world,” Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said in the statement. “For three years, IRFA has sought to work on a middle ground approach that enhanced landowner rights and protections but would allow CCS projects a path forward. While a majority of the Iowa Senate turned their back on Iowa agriculture tonight, IRFA thanks those who stood for common sense.”

Kathy Stockdale, a landowner from Iowa Falls who is among the dozens of Iowans who are consistently at the state Capitol to press lawmakers, late Monday expressed frustration with Senate Republican leadership and disappointment that House File 943 was not passed.

“We are not extremists. We are landowners. We are not activists. We are landowners. We are not protesters. We are landowners standing up for our rights, and it’s time for our senators to do that, too. And our governor,” Stockdale told reporters.

How Iowa lawmakers voted on property rights

Before their final vote on House File 639 late Monday, senators earlier in the day debated Bousselot’s proposal — which was similar to one he introduced earlier this session while moving the legislation through the Senate Commerce Committee that he chairs.

Bousselot’s proposal would have ended the use of eminent domain on hazardous liquid pipelines — but would not have impacted any projects already permitted, including Summit’s.

His proposal also would have allowed pipeline companies to enter into voluntary easement agreements outside a pipeline’s originally proposed path, and would apply its regulations to all infrastructure projects that seek eminent domain from the state, not just hazardous liquid pipelines.

Bousselot previously headed external relations for Summit Agricultural Group, which owns Summit Carbon Solutions.

“Today we have a choice. Let’s not be myopic. Let’s be pragmatic. Let’s be forward-thinking. Let’s protect all landowners with protections that are across the board, that will affect the projects of today and the projects that we know are coming tomorrow,” Bousselot said during debate on his amendment. “With this amendment, we have an opportunity to protect all landowners, to end eminent domain for CO2 pipelines, and to take steps forward — constitutional steps forward.”

  Buy Photo

Sen. Dan Zumbach, a Republican and farmer from Ryan, said Bousselot’s proposal would have protected private property rights, ended eminent domain for future pipeline projects, and done so in a constitutional manner.

Bousselot’s amendment was defeated by a 28-22 vote, with 12 Republicans joining all 16 Democrats in voting against.

“As I look through (the Bousselot amendment), there are a lot of different things in here that I agree with. It’s not bad policy,” Taylor said during debate. He was among the 12 Republicans who voted against it. “But it’s nibbling around the edges. It doesn’t get to the heart of the problem, which is unconstitutional use of eminent domain by the State of Iowa. And I think it’s time that the Legislature finally steps up and gives guidance to the Utilities Commission now and says, ‘No, that is not appropriate in this context.’”

Disagreements between Iowa Senate, House Republicans continue

During Senate debate, Sen. Mike Klimesh, a Republican from Spillville, raised a number of questions about House File 639 that he said showed duplication, created confusion, and appeared “intentionally designed to bog down the system” and make it difficult for future pipeline and other infrastructure projects.

Bousselot described House File 639 as passed by House Republicans as “a Trojan horse” and “an attack on infrastructure from environmental extremists.” Bousselot claimed the bill would undo legal protections currently in state law for infrastructure projects.

Later in debate, Bousselot made references more specifically to “out of state extremists.”

Iowa Rep. Steve Holt, a Republican from Denison who has led on eminent domain legislation in the House and was House File 639’s bill manager, pushed back at Bousselot’s characterization.

“I think that’s rich coming from a senator who worked for Summit and has been the one who stopped any eminent domain protections for landowners for the last three years,” Holt told reporters Monday. “And I think those landowners, many of them, are Republicans, so to suggest that they are environmental extremists by supporting this bill is ridiculous.

“The whole premise is ridiculous. This is not about environmental extremism at all. It’s about protecting landowners. And I think that the arrogance the Senate is showing — the disrespect to landowners, to property owners is frankly breathtaking.”

  Buy Photo

After the bill’s passage, Holt and fellow Rep. Charley Thomson, of Charles City, celebrated the bill’s passage and expressed their disappointment with what they said were mischaracterizations of House File 639 by some Senate Republicans during Monday’s debate.

“The reality is there was a bloodbath today in the Senate because they’ve waited three years, they were tone deaf, they refused to listen to the people (who have been asking for eminent domain legislation),” Holt said of Senate Republicans.

All Senate Democrats voted for the final bill and against Bousselot’s amendment. They also attempted to introduce an amendment that would have effectively turned the bill into House File 943 — the simple ban on eminent domain for hazardous liquid pipelines on agricultural land. But that attempt was ruled procedurally ineligible by Senate Republican leadership.

“When there’s billions of dollars on the line, you’re willing to do a lot. You can hire the best representation that you can buy. You can pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in voluntary easements. You can settle lawsuits. You can do a lot. But you can’t buy the Constitution,” Sen. Zach Wahls, a Democrat from Coralville, said during debate. “Fundamentally, what we are talking about here is the constitutional right to private property.”

Gazette Deputy Bureau Chief Tom Barton and Lee Des Moines Bureau Chief Maya Marchel Hoff contributed.

Comments: (515) 355-1300, erin.murphy@thegazette.com

Get the latest Iowa politics and government coverage each morning in the On Iowa Politics newsletter.