Governor Reynolds Vetoes Eminent Domain Bill in Iowa

By Cami Koons

Veto of House File 639

Governor Kim Reynolds made headlines on Wednesday by vetoing a contentious bill related to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. This decision has sparked an array of reactions from legislators and stakeholders within the agricultural and energy sectors.

Contents of House File 639

House File 639 aimed to increase insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines and impose limitations on carbon pipeline permits, including a restriction to a 25-year term. The bill sought to redefine what constitutes a common carrier in order to complicate the use of eminent domain for these pipeline projects.

Governor’s Rationale

In her official statement, Reynolds expressed that she shared the intention of protecting landowners but deemed the bill insufficiently clear in its policy objectives. She stated, “It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.”

The Importance of Carbon Capture

Reynolds emphasized that the legislation could hinder Iowa’s status as a leader in biofuel production, crucial for entering emerging ultra-low carbon markets. This concern is largely centered around a carbon sequestration pipeline project by Summit Carbon Solutions, intended to transport captured carbon dioxide from various biorefineries in Iowa to underground storage facilities in North Dakota.

Responses from the Agricultural Sector

Supporters of the Summit pipeline, including the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, praised the governor’s decision. Executive Director Monte Shaw noted that the absence of carbon capture technology could result in significant economic ramifications for Iowa, suggesting the bill would elevate energy prices and impede job creation.

Opponents’ Perspectives

While many farmers and industry representatives applauded Reynolds, landowners opposed to the pipeline expressed disappointment. Some critics labeled the veto as a protection for corporate interests at the expense of local farmers’ rights. Mary Powell, an opposing landowner, remarked, “Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights.”

Call for Legislative Action

Following the veto, House Speaker Pat Grassley initiated a petition to reconvene the Legislature in hopes of overriding the governor’s decision. He described the veto as a significant setback for those advocating for landowner rights in Iowa.

Future Prospects

Despite the current veto, Reynolds mentioned her commitment to collaborate with lawmakers to enhance landowner protections while also modernizing permitting processes. She acknowledged the importance of balancing property rights with energy needs, stating, “I’ve consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort.”

Conclusion

The conflict surrounding House File 639 highlights the ongoing tensions between environmental policy and property rights within Iowa. As stakeholders await the next steps from the Legislature, the debate over eminent domain and carbon sequestration in the state will likely continue to elicit strong opinions across the board.

For ongoing coverage and updates related to this issue, visit the Iowa Capital Dispatch.