Private Property Rights Legislation-HF 639: This was the hottest, most controversial bill passed as we finished the session. It was the first time after 4 years of continual and laborious effort that the Iowa Senate finally brought private property rights protections to the floor. It passed 27-22. This was a big win for landowners and farmers threatened by the carbon pipeline!
This is what it does:
- Requires the “clear and convincing evidence” legal standard of proof that the project has a public use in order to use eminent domain authority in condemnation proceedings. This is a stricter standard than what is used now.
- Requires that the project meet the definition of “commodity” and “common carrier” to be able to exercise the right of eminent domain, and that the “clear and convincing evidence” standard be used to determine whether the project meets those definitions.
(The Summit Carbon project would not meet these 2 definitions as it would be transporting CO2 for disposal.)
- A hazardous liquid pipeline company must provide evidence that it has enough insurance to cover all damages resulting from the construction and operation of the project including:
- Any loss due to negligent or intentional discharge of pipeline contents
- Any injury to affected properties from construction, or discharge
- Inability of a person to obtain insurance or increased costs of coverage due to the pipeline coming through their property
- Prohibits renewal of a permit for a CO2 pipeline upon its expiration at 25 years.
- Grants rights to other people besides impacted landowners to serve as intervenors in any proceeding before the Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC):
- A member of the legislature
- An elected county or city official
- Any resident with a minimally plausible interest in the proceeding
This provision was due to the fact the IUC capriciously denied interested people an opportunity to be an intervenor. Being an intervenor means you are allowed to give testimony.
- Requires all 3 members of the IUC to be present in hearings during live testimony. If any member is absent, the hearing would be suspended until their return. Requires at least one member of the IUC be present during informational meetings. If no IUC member is present, the meeting is paused until that member returns.
The bill did not include an outright ban on the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipelines, which is what I would have liked to have added. But we couldn’t get agreement between the majority that supported HF 639 to get that added on.
One of the senators, Sen. Bousselot, offered an amendment onto this bill that would offered protection from eminent domain on the CO2 pipeline to everyone except the very people who are being threatened now! It had other issues similar to what I described in my April 5th newsletter: https://irp.cdn-website.com/c2e95eab/files/uploaded/My_Newsletter_4-5-2025.pdf
This amendment was voted down.
The basic bill as I have described was passed 27-22, and was sent down to the governor for her signature. Please call the governor’s office and encourage her to sign the bill: 515-281-5211
A big thank you to all the landowners and farmers that faithfully and relentlessly lobbied their legislators to get this bill passed. The pressure you brought to bear was critical and indispensable to being able to get this bill to the floor and to be passed! It takes “We the People” to stand up for our constitutional rights to really get the job done!
I would like to say we are finished, but unfortunately we are not.
We must now turn our attention to the “big beautiful bill” going through the U.S. House now. This bill has many good provisions in it and I hope it gets passed, but it has one very bad provision in it that we need to urge our federal delegation to take out: It expands federal eminent domain authority against landowners for CO2 pipelines! Please call your Congressman and our 2 U.S. senators.
We are at a true watershed moment where we need to stand up and fight for our private property rights or risk losing them. We must remember it’s not economic development first and Constitution second. It’s Constitution first, and economic development second.
