‘Four years and another day': Senators punt long-awaited eminent domain debate
'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
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
UNI employee alleges age discrimination in lawsuit after demotion
A University of Northern Iowa employee has filed suit against the university after being demoted, alleging age discrimination. (Photo by Brooklyn Draisey/Iowa Capital Dispatch) A University of Northern Iowa employee is suing the institution after she was demoted from an assistant vice president position, alleging discrimination against her age that led to her taking a pay cut as well as her title and some duties being handed off to younger coworkers. Shelley O'Connell, former UNI assistant vice president and executive director of Student Health and Well Being and current assistant to the vice president, filed suit against the university and the Iowa Board of Regents June 2 and requested a trial by jury. According to court filings, she is seeking funds 'in an amount which will fully and fairly compensate her for her injuries and damages' like emotional stress, lost wages and more. 'As a proximate result of Defendants' actions … Shelley O'Connell has in the past and will in the future suffer mental and emotional harm, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of dignity, lost wages and benefits, loss of professional career, and lost earning capacity,' the court filing stated. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 59-year-old started working at UNI in 2001 as an administrative assistant, the filing stated, and according to her LinkedIn profile, O'Connell earned a master's degree in educational leadership and administration from the institution in 2007. She moved into the assistant vice president position in 2022. In her time in the role, the court filing stated O'Connell received positive performance evaluations and received an award for her 'outstanding dedication and service.' In August 2023, O'Connell had a meeting with her then-supervisor Heather Harbach, the university's vice president for student life, according to the filing, during which Harbach asked O'Connell if she had any plans of stepping down or moving out of a role supervising staff. These questions were 'motivated by (O'Connell's) age,' the filing stated, to which O'Connell replied she had no interest in retiring or stepping away. This exchange led to distance between the coworkers, according to the filing, and O'Connell brought her concerns to the university's Title IX office, saying she felt Harbach was trying to make her vacate her position based on her age. 'Shelley remained committed to her job and providing the best service to the University that she possibly could,' the filing stated. Harbach informed Shelley of her demotion in April 2024, according to the filing, providing the new title and saying her duties specific to her previous role were being transferred to Allyson Rafanello and Nick Rafanello, a married couple. The employees Shelley oversaw were transitioned to work under one of the new assistant vice presidents, and Shelley's pay was reduced by more than $50,000. Allyson Rafanello received an around-$50,000 pay increase for the new duties, the filing stated. In addition to holding the assistant vice president title, Allyson Rafanello is the dean of students and Nick Rafanello is the executive director of university housing and dining. 'Shelley will have to work longer than she had anticipated because her wages were slashed by more than $50,000 per year, thereby delaying her ability to retire,' the filing stated. The plaintiff also had 15 more years of experience at UNI than the new assistant vice presidents, according to the filing, and decades of experience in health care and public health. One of her previous duties was overseeing all university medical facilities, which was transferred to the Rafanellos after her demotion. UNI, and the board of regents, committed age discrimination by setting higher standards for O'Connell than her peers, the filing stated, as well as not treating her equally to younger employees, allowing discrimination from her supervisor, demoting her and offering less pay. UNI spokesperson Pete Moris said the university 'does not comment on pending legal matters.' The university must provide an answer to the petition within 20 days of its filing to the Polk County courthouse. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
Federal appeals court faces backlash after siding with controversial pipeline project: 'Inconsistent with state law'
Prompting sharp criticism, a federal court of appeals has sided with a pipeline company over local officials and residents, striking down ordinances aimed at regulating pipelines within their communities, the Gazette reported. Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking to build a pipeline that would transport sequestered carbon dioxide across five states, including Iowa. In response to Summit's plan, two Iowa counties, Shelby and Story, passed laws that put restrictions on pipeline construction within their borders, according to the appeals court decision. Summit Carbon Solutions then sued the two counties, arguing that both federal and state law preempted local governments' ability to regulate pipeline construction in their own backyards. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a federal law preempts any state law that is in conflict with it. Similarly, under Iowa state law, a law passed by the Iowa general assembly takes precedence over any local law. In 2023, a federal district court sided with Summit, ruling that the federal Pipeline Safety Act and Iowa state law both superseded the county ordinances, effectively striking them down. Shelby and Story counties then appealed the decision, taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On June 5, a three-judge panel for the Eighth Circuit released its opinion upholding the lower court ruling. "The PSA preempts the Shelby and Story ordinances' setback, emergency response, and abandonment provisions," the court found, referring to the federal Pipeline Safety Act. According to the Gazette, the court also found that the ordinances "would prohibit a pipeline company from building in a certain location, even if the (Iowa Utilities Commission) permits construction there. That possibility makes the pipeline company permitting requirements inconsistent with state law and thus preempted." Unless the Iowa counties appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, their pipeline regulations will remain struck down. This case was significant because it tested the ability of local residents and their representatives in municipal government to challenge the presence of massive, dangerous pipelines passing through their communities. Do you think fracking should be illegal in America? Yes — everywhere Yes — in most areas In some areas No Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Summit Carbon Solutions' plan involved building a 2,500-mile pipeline that would transport carbon captured from ethanol plants across five different states all the way to North Dakota, where it would be pumped underground, according to the Gazette. Over the course of those 2,500 miles, about the distance from San Francisco to New York City, the pipeline would pass through countless local communities. These communities are the ones who bear the brunt of such pipeline projects: the risks to human health, the property damage, the environmental degradation, and the ever-present-danger of a pipeline disaster. And yet, as the appeals court decision showed, any effort by residents and municipal governments to use local law to regulate the presence of pipelines in their communities will likely be challenged and potentially struck down. After the Eighth Circuit released its decision, Summit applauded the ruling, saying it "supports a consistent, lawful permitting process for critical infrastructure projects like ours," according to the Gazette. While the appellate ruling has frustrated local efforts to have a say in whether and how pipelines pass through their communities, the decision explicitly did not block every available avenue. "While we had hoped for a more decisive ruling affirming local control, the Court clearly acknowledged that counties can consider safety and implement zoning ordinances," said Emma Schmit, a member of Pipeline Fighters, a group opposed to the project, in a press release. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
Iowa Republican tensions mount following Reynolds' pipeline bill veto
Rep. Charley Thomson chats with attendees at a rally against CO2 pipelines at the Iowa Capitol Mar. 18, 2025. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch) The issue of eminent domain as it pertains to a carbon sequestration pipeline project in Iowa has put Republicans at odds with one another, but Gov. Kim Reynolds' Wednesday decision to veto a bill on the issue has amplified the tensions. On a call with landowners opposed to the pipeline project and upset by the veto, Rep. Steven Holt, a Republican from Denison and one of the lawmakers leading eminent domain and pipeline-related legislation, said there will be 'consequences for the governor's agenda' moving forward. 'The governor's lack of leadership is why we are where we are today, and it will affect her agenda going forward until the end of her term,' Holt said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Landowners on the call were similarly upset by Reynolds' decision, following years of silence on the issue. Peg Rasmussen, who owns land in Montgomery County, said 'a true leader steps in when a problem arises' but 'Reynolds did nothing.' 'The legacy you leave behind is one of bowing down to big business at the expense of Iowans,' Rasmussen said. Tensions around eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines have risen in response to proposed projects in Iowa. Three projects, Navigator CO2, Wolf Carbon Solutions and Summit Carbon Solutions have sought to build carbon sequestration pipelines through Iowa. The first two projects were withdrawn, but the Summit project received a permit from the Iowa Utilities Commission in June 2024 and has more than 1,300 voluntary easements signed for the project. Landowners opposed to the pipelines have lobbied for four years against the projects, and in particular their ability to use eminent domain. This year lawmakers narrowly passed House File 639 to change the definition of a common carrier for hazardous liquid pipelines, increase insurance requirements, set permit limits and add requirements to the IUC. Opponents of the bill said it changed the rules in the middle of the game, had unintended consequences to critical energy infrastructure and would stop Iowa from leading the nation in biofuels production. Landowners also directed their animosity towards Republican lawmakers who opposed the bill, namely at senators who failed to take up the issue for four years, then argued House File 639 was a bad bill. 'The fight for private property rights will continue,' Rasmussen, who was part of a group of landowners regularly lobbying at the State Capitol, said. 'Iowa legislators and Gov. Reynolds, we'll see you at the Capitol in 2026, and we can't wait to tell our legislators how we feel about their votes in the 2026 election.' Holt said the 'leadership void' from the governor and 'civil war' among Senate Republicans has exposed the difference between 'country club Republicans' and 'grassroots Republicans.' Rep. Charley Thomson, a Republican from Charles City who wrote the now-vetoed HF 639, and who, with Holt, has led much of the legislation on the issue, said the opposing Republicans are part of the 'anything-for-a-buck 'wing' of the party' and don't represent the 'vast majority' of Iowa Republicans. 'In the governor's view, constitutional rights, such as eminent domain protections, should not be allowed to interfere with schemes to make money, especially if those schemes are being promoted by her friends, supporters, and contributors,' Thomson wrote in a statement. Bruce Rastetter, founder of Summit Agricultural Group, which started Summit Carbon Solutions, has been a top campaign contributor to Reynolds' campaigns, sparking some of the criticism leveled at the governor. In her explanation of the veto decision, Reynolds wrote the bill had 'vague legal standards' and would impact projects beyond just the use of eminent domain. Reynolds cited the permit limits clause in the bill and increased requirements for insurance as setting a precedent that 'threatens' the state's business reputation. Senate President Amy Sinclair had the same beliefs on the bill. In a recent appearance on Iowa Press, Sinclair said HF 639 'was not a property owners rights bill' but rather a bill 'that's just going to facilitate activists.' 'To say I was a person who opposed property rights, that's 100% false,' Sinclair said on the show. Sinclair and other Republicans who were opposed to HF 639 voted for a re-write amendment to the bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, that would have allowed companies to avoid eminent domain and instead pursue voluntary easements outside of the project corridor. It also would have held operators responsible for damage to the land for the project's lifetime. Thomson said Reynolds' stated concerns were a 'polite window-dressing' for the governor's 'real message' that she will 'veto any bill that Summit Carbon Solutions dislikes.' In reaction to the veto, Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, vowed during a Radio Iowa interview to 'work to kill every single piece of legislation that has [Reynolds'] name on it.' The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment on the attacks from lawmakers. Summit Carbon Solutions, in a statement following the veto, said it looks forward to 'continued discussions with state leaders' as the project advances. Thomson and Holt said they are supportive of House Speaker Pat Grassley's call to petition for a special session in order to override the veto of the bill. The motion for a special session, and to override the veto, would require support from both chambers, which Senate majority leadership indicated Wednesday would be unlikely. Corey Cerwinske, a Bremer County Supervisor attending the virtual press conference, said lawmakers should introduce articles of impeachment on the governor for her 'malfeasance.' Holt said while the veto 'may violate' the constitutional rights of Iowans, the governor's action 'probably doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.' In her veto explanation, Reynolds asked the Iowa Utilities Commission to implement a section of the bill that required attendance at informational meetings and during live testimony. This was a problem brought up by landowners and lawmakers during the proceedings for the Summit Carbon Solutions permit. They alleged IUC would send representatives to meetings rather than commissioners, and that all three commissioners were not present during live testimony. The IUC in a Thursday press release said it 'fully supports' the 'transparency goals' the governor requested and 'will begin implementing' the practices. The release said the commission will also reinstate its public, monthly commission meetings beginning in August. 'The IUC remains dedicated to fair, transparent, and accountable governance of Iowa's energy and utility infrastructure,' the statement read. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
