Can eminent domain for carbon pipelines be avoided without a ban?

Iowa senators advanced a bill Thursday that would require hazardous liquid pipeline operators to prove they had exhausted feasible voluntary easement opportunities before they could use eminent domain. 

Proponents of Senate File 2067 argue it allows companies to avoid the use of eminent domain by looking outside of the proposed route to find willing landowners. Opponents argue the bill does not protect private property rights as pipelines would ultimately still have the ability to use eminent domain. 

The Senate Commerce Committee voted Wednesday to rewrite a House-passed bill, House File 2104, that would have banned the use of eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines, and replace the House language with that of SF 2067. The amended bill is now eligible for Senate debate.

While the bill would impact easement acquisition for all hazardous liquid pipelines in Iowa, comments in the subcommittee Thursday centered on a carbon sequestration pipeline proposed by Summit Carbon Solutions. 

The company is registered undecided on the bill, but Jake Ketzner, lobbying on behalf of Summit, said the company opposed sections of the bill that “create new processes.” 

“This will raise costs and extend timelines, neither of which this project can support at this time,” Ketzner said. 

He said the company asked for a “clean corridor expansion bill.” 

“And that is not what this bill does,” Ketzner said. 

SF 2067 would allow pipeline companies to look for voluntary easements anywhere within the county or within five miles of an initially proposed route.

The companies would also be able to reach out to more landowners in the vicinity of the planned pipeline rather than only reaching out to those in the proposed corridor.

The company must show it had made a “diligent effort” to develop a route entirely from voluntary easements before it can request the authority to use eminent domain. 

Cynthia Hansen, a Shelby County landowner affected by the Summit pipeline, opposed the bill and said it does “nothing” to protect landowners from the “threat of eminent domain.”

“(This) pipeline plan to protect property rights is actually a bill to advance and protect pipeline companies’ rights,” Hansen said. 

The bill was supported by members of union groups who said they would benefit from the job opportunities offered by the construction of the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, as well as Iowa Corn Growers Association and Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. 

The latter groups commissioned a study recently that projected farm markets would continue a downward trend if ethanol producers did not gain access to the ultra-low carbon fuel markets that the pipeline would make possible. 

Nathan Hohnstein, speaking on behalf of Iowa Corn Growers Association, said members have been clear they are already “having tough conversations” with their banks deciding if they will be able to farm next year or not. 

“We think that of all the legislation we’ve seen, this obviously is a good, balanced approach that our membership has asked for,” Hohnstein said. “Is it perfect?  No, but I think this is a great starting point.”

Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh, R-Spillville, said the bill, which he introduced, would “give the power” to both the landowners who have the ability to say no, and the pipeline companies that can find willing landowners and voluntary easements in order to get their projects built.

“This bill protects property owners’ rights, it allows property owners to exercise their property owners’ rights if they wish to enter into a voluntary easement, allows property owners to say no, forces companies to go through an exhaustive process to find a path around and allows the IUC, at the end, to make that determination whether the pipeline company has exhausted all those potential options,” Klimesh said. 

Additionally, the bill allows landowners to engage with pipeline companies or to request no further contact, other than by mail, from the companies which he said “puts the keys for the conversation in the hand of landowners.” 

“I see this as an extension from conversations we’ve had under the dome here for the last four years,” Klimesh said. “This methodology, this approach, is not unique to Iowa, but it provides us a solution and a path forward.” 

Kathy Stockdale, a Hardin County landowner, said in the five years landowners have opposed this project, they have “already compromised” from “banning carbon pipelines altogether” to now asking they are only built on consenting land. 

“Legislators can stop telling us what we need, and start listening to what we need,” Stockdale said. “…Those people that signed with Summit had the right to say yes, we should have the right to say no.”

Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, who chaired the subcommittee, said in his closing comments that the legislative process “is meant to take time.” 

“I believe that as part of the legislative process, there will still be work done on this bill,” Bousselot said. “… I believe we need to get something done, and for that reason, I am proud to sign off on this bill and to keep the legislative process moving.” 

Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines opposed the bill and said she “fail(ed) to see where the compromise here is in this legislation.”