New proposal from new leader adds wrinkle to Iowa lawmakers’ property rights, pipeline debate

DES MOINES — For five years, attempts to pass legislation that would deal with Iowans’ property rights and state government allowing a company to access private land for the construction of a hazardous liquid pipeline has vexed state lawmakers at the Iowa Capitol.

The 2026 session of the Iowa Legislature brings a new key legislative player to the debate, armed with a new proposal regarding eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines.

New Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh, a Republican from Spillville, said he plans early in the session to propose legislation that would allow pipeline projects to amend their planned and approved routes in order to enter into voluntary easements with landowners and avoid using eminent domain.

Whether that proposal is the one that finally breaks the legislative deadlock over the issue will be determined when state lawmakers return to the Iowa Capitol for the 2026 session of the Iowa Legislature, which begins Monday, Jan. 12.

The issue has percolated in the Iowa Legislature for the past five years, ever since the proposals of three carbon capture pipeline projects crossing the state. Since then, just one proposed project remains — from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions.

Evolution of pipeline proposals and eminent domain debate in Iowa

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 in 2024 approved a permit for the Iowa section, including granting Summit eminent domain powers.

In the years since the pipeline was proposed, state legislators have filed and debated myriad pieces of legislation regarding property rights, eminent domain and more.

The debate has divided lawmakers even within the Republican Party, which holds agenda-setting majorities in both chambers of the Iowa Legislature. Broadly speaking, Iowa House Republicans have supported proposed state laws that would restrict eminent domain use and protect property rights, where most Iowa Senate Republicans, particularly in leadership positions, have been hesitant to embrace those House proposals.

  Buy Photo

The debate reached a fever pitch during the 2025 session. Landowners along the pipeline’s route were regulars at the Iowa Capitol, pressing lawmakers to pass a bill protecting their property rights and their desire to keep the pipeline off their land. In the meantime, Summit and other renewable fuels industry groups lobbied for protecting the project and any others in the future that they say would help the industry.

On May 12, landowners shouted from the Senate galleries after legislation appeared on the chamber’s debate schedule for the day but ultimately was not considered. The shouts drew a forceful, vocal rebuke from Iowa Senate President Amy Sinclair, who presides over debate in the chamber.

The next day, for the first time, the Iowa Senate debated the legislation on the floor — only after a group of Republican senators pledged that they would not vote to approve any budget bills until the chamber debated and voted on eminent domain legislation. The debate, primarily between Senate Republican factions, was pointed and often exceptionally critical.

Ultimately, a group of 13 Republican senators joined 14 Democrats in passing the House Republicans’ bill, a sweeping piece of legislation that would have defined in state law what constitutes public good for the use of eminent domain, required pipeline companies to carry a certain amount of insurance, prohibited pipeline renewal after 25 years, and constrained when and how pipeline companies can sue landowners, among other provisions.

  Buy Photo

On June 12, Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed the legislation, saying it went too far and threatened the state’s energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place that is welcoming to business. House Republicans gathered enough support to override the veto, but Senate Republicans declined to join the effort.

Reynolds declined to be interviewed for The Gazette’s legislative preview series.

In issuing her veto last year, the governor pledged to work with lawmakers “to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.”

The eminent domain debate renews in 2026

Klimesh said he plans to introduce his legislation early in the session, possibly during the opening week. Klimesh had already discussed his proposal with House Republican leadership, he said.

“The goal, ultimately, for Senate Republicans is to all but eliminate the need for eminent domain for any public infrastructure project,” Klimesh said in an interview in advance of the legislative session. “I see a lot of value, and continue to see a lot of value, in widening that corridor.”

Klimesh is entering his first session as Senate Majority Leader; he was selected by his Senate Republican colleagues after previous leader Jack Whitver, of Grimes, resigned from the post after last year’s session.

Klimesh opposed the House Republican bill that ultimately passed last year, and was among those who spoke passionately against it during that May 13 floor debate.

“I think we’ve regulated ourselves into this position by really focusing on that notice corridor and not allowing deviations from outside that,” Klimesh said. “At the end of the day, the goal should be to allow property rights to flow both directions: my property rights to not accept your easement, my neighbors’ property rights to accept that easement. And I think by allowing companies building infrastructure in the state to go outside the corridor, they will find those willing partners. At the end of the day, we can all but eliminate the need to utilize eminent domain to construct infrastructure in the state.”

House Speaker Pat Grassley, in a pre-session interview, said House Republicans have clearly shown a willingness to work on legislation on the topic, given the myriad bills they have passed over the past five years. He did not comment on a specific proposal, but said he believes House Republicans will focus on policy that is “much more restrained and more narrowly tailored around the eminent domain conversation.”

  Buy Photo

“I don’t know if we’ve landed on the exact language, but it will not be as broad as the piece that we passed (last year that was) vetoed by the governor. That’s not my expectation,” Grassley said.

New Iowa House Minority Leader Brian Meyer, of Des Moines, said he could see House Democrats supporting Klimesh’s proposal, although he cautioned that support is pending seeing the actual legislation.

Meyer said he believes Summit’s proposed pipeline is a project with “merit,” but that any legislation should also respect Iowans’ property rights.

“It’s a project that, if it’s done right, will help increase profits for farmers moving forward,” Meyer said. “But we also have to balance that with property rights of the owners of the land. So hopefully (majority Republicans) have brought everybody, all principles, together to come up with a plan.”

  Buy Photo

Landowner activists who have been involved in the legislative debate for years are not sold on Klimesh’s plan. They point out that it does not stop a private company like Summit from using eminent domain — it only allows the company to alter its route if it chooses. In a press release, the Sierra Club called Klimesh’s proposal a “false solution” because it does not prohibit eminent domain.

The landowner activists are calling for legislation that would simply prohibit eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines, similar to a law passed in South Dakota last year.

“Expanding the pipeline corridor means even more landowners can be abused with the threat of eminent domain. That makes matters worse for landowners — not better,” the Sierra Club press release says. “Eminent domain must be off the table, period. Iowans deserve property right protection from our elected officials, not watering our individual rights down in favor of billionaires and their profit motives.”

  Buy Photo

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

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