Iowa governor vetoes bill on eminent domain for pipelines

Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley, a fellow Republican, said he has asked legislators to sign a petition to call a special session of the Iowa Legislature to override Reynolds’ veto.

The proposed legislation, House File 639, contained provisions that were intended to make it more difficult for state government to seize private land to aid the construction of hazardous liquid pipelines and other energy infrastructure projects.

The bill passed the Iowa Legislature earlier this year only after a contentious and heated debate in the Iowa Senate, where Republicans were divided on the bill.

Summit Carbon Solutions has proposed a 2,500-mile CO2 pipeline through five states, including Iowa, to capture the greenhouse gas from ethanol plants and bury it in North Dakota. State regulators approved a permit for the Iowa section, including granting Summit eminent domain powers.

Supporters of the proposed bill said it would have protected Iowans’ private property rights against proposed pipeline projects from private companies. “No eminent domain for private gain” became a common rallying call of the bill’s supporters.

Opponents of the bill asserted that they also support Iowans’ private property rights, but expressed concern that the legislation will hamper economic growth by stifling all types of infrastructure projects — not just pipelines — and alleged the true goal of the bill was to kill a current proposed CO2 pipeline project in Iowa.

Reynolds met with various stakeholders on both sides of the issue in recent weeks.

In a statement, Reynolds said she respects both sides of the debate, but argued that the bill goes too far.

“(The bill) isn’t just about eminent domain. It goes much further — and in doing so sets a troubling precedent that threatens Iowa’s energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence,” Reynolds said in the statement.

Reynolds said the bill’s insurance requirements and a 25-year limit on pipeline permits would effectively kill future projects, including one that is already in development by Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy.

“I understand this was not the intent. Those who crafted the bill said they don’t want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary agreements,” Reynolds said. “But that is exactly what the bill does. For that reason alone, I cannot sign it.”

Reynolds also argued — as did critics of the bill during legislative debate — that because the bill applied to all hazardous liquid pipelines, it would have created “uncertainty” for energy infrastructure projects in Iowa, including for oil, gas and fertilizer pipelines that heat homes and power farms.

“While I share the bill’s goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn’t,” Reynolds said in her statement. “It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.”

House File 639 would have, among other provisions:

• Defined in state law what constitutes public good for the use of eminent domain;
• Required hazardous liquid pipeline companies to carry a certain amount of insurance and restore damaged farmland;
• Prohibited renewal of a CO2 pipeline project after 25 years;
• Placed constraints on when and how pipeline companies can file lawsuits against landowners and
• Required Iowa Utilities Commission members to attend hearings on pipeline projects.

In her veto, Reynolds said she will ask the IUC to require all commissioners be present for live testimony and ensure that at least one commissioner attends each informational meeting. Reynolds also pledged to work with lawmakers “to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.”

A statement from Grassley’s office said the bill “would have been monumental in protecting Iowa landowners’ rights from the threat of eminent domain.”

The statement said Grassley has sent a request to all legislators, asking them to sign a petition to reconvene the Iowa Legislature in special session to override Reynolds’ veto.

“This veto is a major setback for Iowa,” Grassley said. “It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like House File 639 passed.

“We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners in Iowa are protected against eminent domain for private gain.”

A special session of the Iowa Legislature, as detailed in Article 3 of the Iowa Constitution, can be called only by the governor or by a petition signed by two-thirds of the members of each chamber of the Iowa Legislature.

That makes a special session unlikely, given the 21 Senate Republicans who voted against the bill. Assuming all 21 oppose a special session to override the veto, there would not be enough Senators to get the 34 votes needed in that chamber.

In a statement, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver, a Republican from Grimes, said he supports Reynolds’ veto and that he expects a majority of Senate Republicans would not support a special session to override the veto. Whitver and most other Senate Republican leaders were among the 21 in their caucus who voted against House File 639 — against 13 Senate Republicans who voted for it.

“Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights,” Whitver said in his statement. “I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto.”

Beyond Grassley’s call for a special session to override Reynolds’ veto, reaction from Iowa House Republicans showed how passionately lawmakers felt about the bill and the topic.

Iowa Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican from Wilton, compared Reynolds’ veto to her endorsement of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for the Republican presidential nomination after she previously told Donald Trump she did not plan to endorse prior to the 2024 Iowa caucuses.

“I didn’t think it was possible for her to make a bigger mistake than lying to Donald Trump about the caucus endorsement, but clearly this is her ‘Hold my beer’ moment,” Kaufmann said. “I vow to work to kill every single piece of legislation that has her name on it. Her days of legislating, as far as I’m personally concerned, are over.”

In an interview with Radio Iowa, Kaufmann referred to Reynolds as “Bruce Rastetter’s errand girl,” referring to the Summit Carbon Solutions owner.

Iowa Rep. Steve Holt, a Republican from Denison, posted on his social media that he was “profoundly disappointed” by Reynolds’ veto. Holt is among a group of House Republicans that has been most actively involved in crafting and advancing eminent domain legislation over the past four years.

“During discussions with the governor’s office after the bill’s passage, I told them we could look at tightening language in the next legislative session to address any economic concerns they had, as long as proposed changes did not diminish protections for landowners currently fighting against eminent domain for the CO2 pipeline,” Holt wrote. “Yet, today the governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party (of Iowa) platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests.”

In his post, Holt said he supports the movement to reconvene the Iowa Legislature and override Reynolds’ veto.

“The governor’s lack of leadership on this issue for the last three years, during which time she could have offered her own suggestions but did not, and now her veto, has placed our once disciplined and principled Republican Party into conflict and confusion, leaving voters to doubt our commitment to uphold the Constitution we took an oath to defend,” Holt wrote.

Iowa House and Senate Democrats also issued statements criticizing Reynolds’ veto.

A statement from the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association called House File 639 “flawed legislation” and claimed the bill was “widely” opposed by farmer organizations, trade unions, energy producers, and renewable fuels producers.

Monte Shaw, the group’s executive director, said in the statement that the organization is “deeply grateful” for Reynolds’ veto.

“This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances. Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers,” Shaw said. “IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.”

Shaw said the bill would have effectively killed any future carbon capture and sequestration projects in the state, regardless of whether they required the use of eminent domain.

“Despite rhetoric from supporters of the bill, it failed to enhance property owner rights and simply sought to kill all (carbon capture and sequestration) projects,” Shaw said in his statement. “Hopefully today sends a message that those interested in progress, not posturing, should work towards a middle ground approach that enhances landowner rights and protections but would allow (carbon capture and sequestration) projects a path forward.”

A statement from Growth Energy, a national biofuels trade association, praised Reynolds’ veto and charged the legislation with having “onerous new regulations on carbon capture investments” that would have made it “nearly impossible to build new carbon storage and transport infrastructure in Iowa.”

“We’re deeply grateful to Governor Reynolds for having the conviction to stand up for rural jobs and preserve opportunities for future generations of Iowa farmers,” Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor said in the statement. “We look forward to working with our elected leaders to find a balanced policy solution that allows our industry to remain competitive and protects the billions of additional dollars these projects could deliver for farmers in Iowa and across the heartland.”

The issue of property rights and eminent domain has percolated in the Iowa Legislature for the past four years, ever since three carbon capture pipeline projects were proposed to cross parts of the state. Since then, only the Summit Carbon Solutions project remains.

Regulators on the Iowa Utilities Commission approved a permit for the Iowa section, including granting Summit eminent domain powers. But regulators said construction cannot begin in Iowa until the Dakotas also have approved it.

North Dakota has. But Summit has faced challenges in South Dakota, which recently passed a law banning the use of eminent domain for the project. And South Dakota regulators have twice rejected permits, though Summit says it will try again with a new route.

Summit, in June 2024, said 75% of Iowa landowners on the project’s proposed route had signed voluntary easements, and that the company was working to increase that number.

The Iowa House, which has passed eminent domain and pipeline legislation in past years, passed two more this year: House File 639 and House File 943, which would have simply prohibited the use of eminent domain for hazardous liquid pipelines on agricultural land.

Toward the end of the 2025 legislative session, a dozen Republican senators signed a pledge to withhold their support for budget bills until House File 639 was called up in the Senate for debate and a vote. They got their wish in the final week of the session, and the floor debate was spirited and at times heated.

The bill passed the Iowa Senate on a 27-22 vote, with 13 Republicans voting for it and 21 against; 14 of the 15 Democrats present for the vote also supported the bill. It had previously passed the Iowa House, on March 26, with broad, bipartisan support on an 85-10 vote.