A House subcommittee advanced a bill Tuesday that would prohibit carbon dioxide pipeline operators from exercising eminent domain for the purpose of building a carbon sequestration pipeline.
Landowners and some Iowa Republicans have been opposed to the use of eminent domain, or the taking of private property with just compensation for public use, in relation to a proposed carbon sequestration pipeline.
The House passed a similar bill last year, and a faction of senators attempted to amend a different pipeline-related bill to an eminent domain ban, but the effort was not accepted on the Senate floor.
Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, said the language in House Study Bill 507 is “as simple as it can get.” Holt said the bill would not stop the pipeline from being built, but would protect Iowans’ private property rights.
“Economic development is of profound importance, but it does not trump fundamentally constitutional rights,” Holt said. “The use of government power to seek property for a private economic development project is not constitutional.”
Opponents of the bill argued it would stall economic growth in the state by blocking construction of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, a project that would connect to ethanol plants in Iowa and surrounding states and transport sequestered carbon dioxide from the plants to underground storage.
This would give Iowa’s renewable fuel industry access to the ultra-low carbon fuel market.
The project has already been affected by a South Dakota law banning the use of eminent domain for carbon sequestration pipelines. Recent filings indicate Summit may change course from its original plan to sequester the carbon dioxide in North Dakota, in order to avoid crossing through South Dakota.
Jake Ketzner, speaking on behalf of Summit Carbon Solutions, said HSB 507 would “kill” the project and take away Iowa’s ability to compete in new and emerging markets for low carbon ethanol.
Ketzner said the company instead supports a bill that widens the pipeline corridor beyond the route in its state permit to allow the pipeline to find a route without having to cross through unwilling landowner’s property.
“This bill is a ban,” Ketzner said. “We can do better.”
Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, has said he plans to file a bill related to eminent domain. While not yet filed, Klimesh has said his bill, rather than banning eminent domain, would allow pipeline operators to deviate from their approved routes to instead find passage with willing landowners.
Klimesh has said his vision for dealing with the controversial topic, is similar to an amendment filed by Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, to the pipeline bill in 2025.
This amendment was opposed by Senate Democrats and a group of Senate Republicans who sided with the majority of House Republicans on the pipeline issue. The pipeline has caused tension within the Iowa Republican Party.
Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said the bill boils down to the constitutional rights and protections that Iowans have around property. Thomson said even with the bill, there are still issues of eminent domain that will have to be solved in the state of Iowa.
“The Summit proposal is a clever, but very corrupt perversion of our constitutional system,” Thomson said.
Several representatives from labor unions also spoke against the bill and said it would lead to a “direct result in job loss for the Iowa trades workers.”
Landowners who testified in favor of the bill said Summit could still build its pipeline if the bill were enacted, but it would protect them from eminent domain.
Pipeline opponents say House is behind them
Earlier in the day, landowners opposed to the pipeline project gathered in the Iowa State Capitol Rotunda to kick off their fifth year lobbying against the project.
Last year marked the first time a pipeline-related bill was taken up in the Senate, and while the bill narrowly passed the chamber, it was vetoed by Gov. Kim Reynolds.
Landowners, wearing their signature red attire, joined in a prayer led by Rockwell City pastor Dillon Brandt. He prayed lawmakers would “seek what is best for the people, the land and future generations.”
Peg Rasmussen, a Montgomery County landowner impacted by the second proposed phase of Summit’s project, came to the Capitol Tuesday to begin her second year lobbying against the pipeline.
Rasmussen said she felt the House was “solidly behind” the pipeline fighters’ cause, but said the Senate, “as always” will be a challenge.
Rasmussen said Holt’s bill was a “simple clean bill.”
In her veto message, Reynolds said House File 639 had “vague legal standards and sweeping mandates” rather than “clear, careful lines.”
Rasmussen said landowners, about 80 of whom were in attendance Tuesday, have asked some of the senators who have been previously on their side to submit an eminent domain ban — like HSB 507 — in the Senate.
She said that while she hasn’t seen the language of Klimesh’s bill, she doubts it’s “as short and simple” as HSB 507.
What about the Senate bill?
Holt argued that a bill widening the pipeline corridor may reduce the use of eminent domain for the project, but it does not protect landowners as eminent domain could still be used.
Tom Hayes, president of South Central Iowa Federation of Labor, spoke in opposition to the bill and said for all of the pipeline projects he has worked on, eminent domain was a problem.
“This bill can knock out only the carbon capture pipeline,” Hayes said.
He argued a bill that allowed pipeline operators to look outside of their approved routes would go further in preventing the use of eminent domain on private property owners.
Holt and Thomson held that carbon capture pipelines do not rise to the level of a public use that is required for the use of eminent domain.
“I will continue to support ethanol, I will continue to support corn growers, and I will continue to support agriculture, but they do not trump the constitutional rights of the good men and women sitting in this room,” Holt said.
Holt advanced the bill to the House Judiciary Committee.
