‘Four years and another day': Senators punt long-awaited eminent domain debate
Landowners opposed to carbon sequestration pipelines shout at senators for declining to debate an eminent domain bill Friday. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
'Shame, shame, shame,' a red-shirted group chanted from a Senate gallery after a full day waiting for senators to debate a bill impacting carbon sequestration pipelines.
A group of landowners has been pushing lawmakers to take up the issue around property rights for four years. They, along with farmers and union workers in favor of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, showed up to the Capitol in droves Friday, expecting to hear debate on House File 639.
After breaking for a closed-door caucus after almost every action on the floor, senators decided to adjourn until Monday, without having debated the eminent domain bill or budgets.
'You're disrespecting our time,' a landowner yelled from the gallery following the pound of the gavel.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
HF 639 would set requirements for pipeline insurance and permit limits and change the definitions of common carrier in the state to require hazardous liquid pipeline operators prove they will transport commodities owned by shippers not affiliated with the carrier.
The Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, which was granted eminent domain by the Iowa Utilities Commission in June, would connect to nearly 60 ethanol facilities and stretch around 2,500 across Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. The pipeline would transport sequestered carbon dioxide from the facilities to underground storage in North Dakota.
Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, proposed a major amendment to the bill in committee, and an additional amendment Friday that removes many parts of the version passed from the House.
Under Bousselot's amendment, which must be approved on the floor, projects could seek voluntary easements from outside of the project corridor, which he said would allow them to avoid using eminent domain.
His amendment also requires the project operators to repair damaged land for the lifetime of the project. The Iowa Utilities Commission would have to make a decision on permit applications within one year and members would have to be present at hearings under the amendment, which would apply to all projects seeking eminent domain.
Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, proposed a strikethrough amendment Friday that instead added language similar to House File 943, to ban the use of eminent domain for pipelines carrying liquified carbon dioxide.
'I guess four years and another day is what we will be doing again next Monday,' Sherri Webb, a landowner opposed to the pipeline said following the adjournment. 'We're just gonna have to wait another day, and it's not right.'
Farmers and biofuel advocates who gathered in the Capitol rotunda earlier in the day said the carbon sequestration capabilities offered by the pipeline would open the door to expanded biofuel markets, like sustainable aviation fuel.
A number of farmers were among the more than 1,300 landowners who have already signed easement agreements with Summit.
Kelly Nieuwenhuis, a signed landowner and corn farmer in O'Brien County, said he signed easement agreements with Summit for nearly three miles of pipeline through his property.
'We need to get this project done for a positive future for not only farmers, but the biofuels industry and good-paying jobs for rural America,' Nieuwenhuis said.
Farmers pointed to low corn prices from lack of market demand as a strong reason for the pipeline, as it would make it easier for ethanol producers in Iowa to enter the ultra-low carbon ethanol market.
The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association earlier this week published a study highlighting the same issue. While the ethanol industry had another good year in 2024, the study said the associated economic effects of biofuels were diminished by the 'stagnant' corn market.
'This project, hooking these plants onto it, is going to change and open up markets,' Mark Wigans, a signed landowner and an ethanol plant president, said at the rally. 'Agriculture's in terrible shape right now, and we need change and this is going to give it to us.'
Also in attendance were members from several union locals, in favor of the pipeline for the construction jobs it would supply.
The 110-day legislative session was scheduled to end May 2, marking the end to some per diem payments to lawmakers. The failure to bring an eminent domain bill to the Senate floor likely sets back efforts to end the session early next week.
Though the Senate did not vote on the eminent domain bill Friday, lawmakers did approve one measure, House File 856, a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion activities and offices in state agencies and community colleges. The Senate amended the bill to remove private colleges from the measure and returned it to the House.
The chamber also voted along party lines to confirm three of the governor's appointees – Cheryl Elsloo to the Iowa State Civil Rights Commission, Christine Hensley to the Iowa Board of Regents and Whitney Smith McIntosh to the state's Human Rights Board.
However, there were several other measures on the calendar – including budget bills – that were not brought up for debate. Senate File 645, the economic development budget, Senate File 646, the agriculture and natural resources budget and Senate File 647, the education budget were not brought up before the chamber adjourned Friday.
There were amendments filed on these three bills to reflect the budget compromise reached with House Republicans Thursday. While these amendments are spending figures that represent an agreement between House and Senate Republicans, the majority caucuses in both chambers, the Senate would not be able to pass these or other budget bills before getting the support of the 12 GOP senators who pledged to vote against appropriations bills until the eminent domain legislation is brought to the floor.
Most of the spending bills for fiscal year 2026 have not yet been approved in either chamber. The House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to meet Monday, May 12 to discuss four budget bills. The Senate Appropriations Committee also still must hold a meeting to approve standings appropriations bill that includes the State Supplemental Aid (SSA) per-pupil funding for Iowa's K-12 system, the House priority of $14 million for paraeducator pay, and other various state spending obligations.
Robin Opsahl contributed to this report.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
We deserve better than costly, wasteful carbon capture schemes
An anti-carbon pipeline sign is set up along the road near Canton. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) Across the Northern Great Plains, opposition to carbon capture projects is growing — nowhere more so than in South Dakota, where lawmakers recently blocked carbon capture companies from using eminent domain. The backlash to these projects is driven by concerns about the impact on farmers and ranchers, public safety, private property rights, and the billions in taxpayer dollars being funneled into unproven technology. Let's be clear: oil and gas and ethanol companies want to use public subsidies to bury millions of tons of pollution underground — threatening South Dakota's land, water and communities. To protect our communities and prevent waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds, we deserve better than carbon capture schemes. That's why one of us is working to protect taxpayers from wasting billions on subsidies for a technology that has never been proven to deliver net reductions in carbon emissions. In fact, it may actually result in public health and safety liabilities for nearby communities. The other is organizing to defend rural communities from the false promises and harmful impacts of carbon capture and storage. We agree: Carbon capture and storage should not be propped up at the expense of federal taxpayers and South Dakotans. South Dakota regulators deny carbon pipeline permit again, but company vows to reapply In recent years, we've watched Summit Carbon Solutions try to win support for a multi-state carbon dioxide pipeline — and when that failed, attempt to force it through using eminent domain. That's a process meant for public benefit, not private industry. After the Legislature blocked carbon capture companies from using it, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission required Summit to reapply for a permit — another major setback for the company's risky proposal. At Dakota Rural Action, we organize people, build leadership, and foster partnerships that protect our environmental resources and strengthen our communities. We advocate for resilient agriculture, clean air and water, and energy systems that work for all South Dakotans — now and for generations to come. At Taxpayers for Common Sense, we advocate for a federal government that uses resources wisely and serves the people, not special interests. Our research shows that tens of billions in taxpayer dollars have already gone to grants, loans and tax credits for carbon capture — often with little to show for it. After more than a decade and billions spent, carbon capture has consistently failed to deliver any meaningful emissions reduction. In 2023, U.S. CCS facilities captured just 22 million tons of CO2 annually — only about 0.4% of national emissions. Not only is CCS ineffective at capturing emissions at scale, CCS projects also expand oil and gas infrastructure, prolonging oil and gas dependence — often at the risk of private property rights, as CCS pipeline infrastructure grows. CCS also poses significant threats to local communities, as the transportation and storage of carbon risk poisoning the air and groundwater. What's more, carbon capture technology remains prohibitively expensive and is unlikely to be deployed at scale without breaking the bank for taxpayers. Independent analyses confirm what we've seen time and again: major carbon capture projects routinely fail or fall short — due to cost overruns, delays and inability to secure private investment. Instead, projects must rely on federal handouts at taxpayers' expense, often without producing any benefits. As the federal government continues to pour funding into carbon capture technology, its programs have been subject to mismanagement, waste and fraud. For example, in an analysis of 11 carbon capture projects funded by the Department of Energy — awarded a combined $1.1 billion — the Government Accountability Office found that three were actually completed, partially due to the lack of economic viability of coal CCS projects but also due to DOE's own mismanagement. The carbon capture tax credit, known as 45Q, also has a history of abuse. In 2020, the Treasury Department's inspector general reported that $894 million worth of the credits were claimed without complying with reporting requirements. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The oil and gas industry supports carbon capture because it protects their profits. And throughout the Midwest, they have partnered with the ethanol industry to tap into a steady and, thanks to taxpayer-backed subsidies, profitable source of carbon emissions. Not only can companies benefit from the lucrative 45Q tax credit for every ton of carbon they produce and then capture, they can use the captured carbon to extract more oil and generate more revenue, by injecting the carbon into depleted reservoirs to stimulate more production. Despite this track record, out-of-state corporations have secured even more federal support. With the help of aggressive lobbying, they won billions in new subsidies and expanded tax breaks, then moved to push projects into South Dakota communities, prioritizing profits over people. Despite a well-documented history of tax fraud and project failures, Congress continued to expand CCS in recent years, providing over $12 billion for research and demonstration projects and expanding the 45Q tax credit, which is now expected to cost taxpayers over $36 billion over the next decade. The reality is simple: Carbon capture has become a conduit for shifting public dollars into corporate bank accounts with no real results to show for it. South Dakotans deserve better. Real clean energy solutions start with protecting what already works — our native prairies — and not schemes that waste public resources.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Governor signs Medicaid work requirements, Opioid Settlement Fund bills into law
Gov. Kim Reynolds, seen here in a file photo from May 2023, signed two dozen bills Friday. (Photo by Kathie Obradovich/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds signed more than 20 bills into law Friday, including funding for the state's Opioid Settlement Fund and state-level Medicaid work requirements. The governor has a little more than a week, until June 14, to sign the remaining bills passed during the 2025 legislative session into law. This week, the governor has held events signing multiple measures into law — including the reduction in Iowa's unemployment insurance tax system. On Friday, she signed into law House File 969, a bill expanding the disability and death benefits for first responders like firefighters, emergency medical services responders and law enforcement officer to cover all forms of cancer. This was not the only measure Reynolds signed into law Friday. She released a list of 24 new laws, which include some state spending provisions and other high-profile policies sent to her desk earlier this year. Here are some of the bills signed into law: As discussions — and conflicts — continue over the federal work requirement proposal for Medicaid coverage included in the GOP budget reconciliation bill, Reynolds signed Senate File 615, into law, a measure setting similar work requirements for the Iowa Medicaid program. The requirements for at least 80 hours of work each month would apply to people receiving health coverage through the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan. IHAWP is the state's expanded Medicaid program for low-income people between ages 19 to 64. There are exemptions to these work and reporting requirements for people with disabilities, serious illnesses or injuries, as well as those with children under age 6. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The law directs the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services to seek a waiver to implement these requirements from the federal government. Iowa HHS has already submitted a waiver with a slightly different work requirement plan for IHAWP — one that sets a 100-hour per month work requirement, or for a person to be earn the equivalent in wages to working 100 hours a month at $7.25 per hour, or be enrolled in education or job skills programs to retain coverage. Reynolds said in a statement on the bill signing, 'it is priority of mine to ensure our government programs reflect a culture of work.' 'If you are an able-bodied adult who can work, you should work,' the governor said. 'We need to return Medicaid back to its intended purpose—to provide coverage to the people who truly need it.' Democrats and others critics have said the legislation will cut off health care coverage for eligible Iowans due to additional red tape, leading to a financial hit for rural hospitals and other health care centers. The measure also contains a component that could have lasting impacts for Iowa's expanded Medicaid program: If the federal government allows Iowa to implement work requirements, then later revokes approval, HHS would be directed to end IHAWP. The move to discontinue the program would require federal approval, and if the decision is not approved, Iowa HHS would be asked to pursue implementing an 'alternative plan' under federal Medicaid administration guidelines. After several years of stalled action, Reynolds approved the Legislature's agreement on how to spend money from opioid lawsuit settlements. House File 1038 distributes $29 million from the fund, money obtained in settlements for lawsuits by states against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies for their roles in the opioid epidemic. For several years, lawmakers in the Senate and House have failed to reach an agreement on how to spend the funds, which are obligated to go to opioid addiction treatment and prevention. But in the final hours of the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers agreed to a system that provides funding for specific organizations and programs that focus on addition treatment, recovery and prevention in fiscal year 2026. In future years, money in the settlement fund will go to Iowa HHS and the Attorney General's office — entities that will then decide how to allocate the money to organizations in the state. HHS will receive 75% of the funding each year and the AG's office will receive 25%. While some lawmakers said they were frustrated with the money going to these state entities instead of being distributed directly by the Legislature, the bill passed with broad bipartisan support as get the funding into Iowa communities. The governor thanked the Legislature for sending the bill to her desk in 2025. 'The opioid crisis continues to impact Iowa families,' Reynolds said in a statement. 'I'm thankful the legislature reached an opioid settlement fund agreement this session to immediately distribute $29 million to providers and appropriate ongoing available funds to support early intervention, prevention, treatment, and recovery.' The governor also signed House File 706, the bill setting higher penalties for violations of open meetings laws and requiring public officials t9 receive training on open meetings and records laws. The bill was brought forward this year after a similar measure was vetoed in 2024 after a last-minute amendment was added that public records advocates had said would lead to unintended consequences. But Rep. Gary Mohr, R-Bettendorf, said adding heightened penalties and more training was still an important measure to pass as a means of addressing violations of these laws in Davenport related to the collapse of a six-story apartment building and alleged violations of open meeting laws in 2023. The bill was also amended in 2025 by the Iowa Senate to include language add two types of records to the state's list of confidential records — security camera footage from the Iowa Capitol and information from state employee identification card access systems. Senate File 175, also signed into law Friday, is a measure modeled after 'Meet Baby Olivia' laws passed in other states. Though Iowa's law does not reference the 'Meet Baby Olivia' video developed by the anti-abortion group Live Action by name, it requires students in 5th through 12th grade human growth and development classes be shown ultrasound video and computer-generated rendering or animations depicting 'the humanity of the unborn child by showing prenatal human development, starting at fertilization.' The bill was amended by the House to include a provision banning materials in school classrooms on fetal development that come from an entity that performs or 'promotes' abortion, or that contracts, affiliates, or makes referrals to organizations that perform or promote abortions. Democratic lawmakers said this ban would mean material coming from reputable organizations and health care providers, like the Mayo Clinic or the University of Iowa Health System, could be excluded, as the ban would not exclude organizations that perform abortions in cases necessary to save the life of the mother. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
