DES MOINES, Iowa — A $8 billion carbon pipeline project spanning 2,500 miles is facing mounting resistance in Iowa. While Summit Carbon Solutions pushes ahead with its plan to transport carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to underground storage in North Dakota, landowners, environmental groups, and now lawmakers are taking action to stop it.
On Wednesday, Driftless Water Defenders (DWD) filed a motion to intervene in a legal appeal challenging the Iowa Utilities Commission’s (IUC) approval of Summit’s permit, arguing that the commission failed to consider water impacts. On Thursday, Iowa House Republicans introduced six bills to restrict eminent domain for carbon pipelines, impose new financial requirements on pipeline operators, and limit the power of the IUC.
DWD’s legal argument: ‘No evidence water was considered’
Summit secured approval from the IUC in August 2024, gaining the right to use eminent domain to seize private land from unwilling property owners. But according to DWD attorney Jim Larew, the IUC ignored a key factor in its decision: the impact on Iowa’s water supply.
“We reviewed the record carefully and could find no evidence that those issues had been considered, none at all of the water quality issue,” Larew said.
DWD’s motion to intervene, filed Feb. 5, seeks to join the case against the IUC that already includes groups like the Iowa Sierra Club Chapter, arguing that water concerns should have been a central issue in the permitting process.
Chris Jones, president of Driftless Water Defenders, pointed to two major concerns: groundwater depletion and water contamination. He said the pipeline would require massive amounts of water to compress and transport carbon dioxide, and that water—once used—would not return to the system unchanged.
“Not only how much that they’re going to use, but also what’s going to happen to that water after they use it,” Jones said. “The corn that comes into these ethanol plants contains things like pesticides that ultimately have to go somewhere if they’re not consumed in the fermentation process. Will those end up in the water? Will that water be discharged to a stream?”
The pH of the water would change, its temperature would increase, and its chemical composition could contain pollutants, Jones warned.
“We are depleting our bedrock aquifers. There’s no doubt about that,” he said. “The farther we have to pump it up, the more energy we’re going to consume. That’s a climate change consideration, right? … And we just get silence from Summit and from the agencies on this.”
Iowa House Republicans introduce six anti-pipeline bills
As DWD makes its legal case, Iowa lawmakers are moving in legislatively. Six bills (HF 237-242) introduced in the Iowa House this week seek to impose new restrictions on eminent domain, pipeline insurance, and the Iowa Utilities Commission.
Key Bills Introduced:
- HF 237 – Allows landowners subject to eminent domain to challenge takings in Polk County District Court.
- HF 238 – Requires hazardous liquid pipeline companies to show proof of insurance covering damages.
- HF 239 – Prohibits the IUC from renewing permits for CO₂ pipelines and limits their operational lifespan to 25 years.
- HF 240 – Requires pipeline companies to cover landowners’ insurance premium increases due to construction or operation of a pipeline.
- HF 241 – Prohibits the IUC from sanctioning parties involved in lawsuits related to pipelines.
- HF 242 – Restructures the IUC by requiring all commissioners to be present for hearings and removing the state consumer advocate from the Attorney General’s office, making it an independent entity.
“I expect all those bills to get a hearing,” House Speaker Pat Grassley (R) said. “We’ll make a determination where we have levels of support within the caucus. You may see some of those end up amended together.”
Rep. Brian Meyer (D) emphasized that protecting property rights has long been a bipartisan issue, and while Democrats are generally aligned with the legislation’s goal of restricting eminent domain, there are concerns about how far the restrictions should go and whether they could have unintended consequences.
“The Democrats have always been strongly supportive of property rights, and we support it for the most part,” Meyer said.
Senate Minority Leader Janice Weiner (D) has previously called for a full legislative debate on the issue, saying that Iowans deserve to see where lawmakers stand on eminent domain abuses.
“I personally support property rights, but I can’t tell you what my colleagues would do,” Weiner said. “Iowans deserve, at least, to be able to see a vote take place.”
Even Libertarians are backing the legislation. Greene County Attorney Thomas Laehn, the only elected Libertarian in Iowa, called it a “tri-partisan movement.”
“I’m the only Libertarian to hold an elective partisan office in the state. So, it’s not just a bipartisan movement. It’s a tri-partisan movement.,” he said. “Here we have left-leaning environmentalist groups with more Libertarian groups, right-leaning property rights groups.”
Summit’s backing: Federal subsidies, state-level deregulation
The carbon pipeline is backed by federal tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, introduced by President Biden. Summit argues the pipeline will help reduce CO₂ emissions and sustain ethanol production.
Meanwhile, Jones said Governor Kim Reynolds (R) is making it easier for projects like this to move forward by weakening regulatory oversight.
“We have an administration at the federal level that’s telling us that climate change is a hoax,” Jones said. “Then we have people at the state level that are trying to ramrod this thing through, tear up our farmland and consume a lot of water and perhaps discharge a lot of water that contains pollutants for a very dubious sort of climate change solution.”
Monte Shaw, Executive Director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA), dismissed the proposed pipeline bills.
“This muddle of bills is a slap in the face to the supermajority of Iowa landowners who support carbon capture pipelines,” Shaw said in a statement. “At a time when farm income has declined by $90 billion, we should be helping Iowa farmers access new and growing markets, not choking off their ability to participate. These actions represent wrong policy at the wrong time.”
‘A new civil rights movement’
For Larew, the fight over Summit’s pipeline isn’t just about one project—it’s about a larger battle for environmental rights in Iowa.
“Iowans are on the cusp of a new civil rights movement, and this is one that recognizes and protects the fundamental rights of Iowans to access clean water,” Larew said. “Litigation has an important but not exclusive role to play in advancing this new civil rights movement to protect the interests of Iowans to get access to clean water.”
Jones took it a step further, calling Iowa’s agribusiness leaders an “oligarchy” that has long controlled environmental policy in the state.
“We’ve had the oligarchy here in Iowa for a long time,” Jones said. “We’ve seen these agribusiness titans run rampage across the state and ruin a lot of our natural resources, including the water and our air. We need to get in front of this.”
Summit and the IRFA could not be reached for comment on the DWD motion to intervene despite multiple attempts.
