Gov. Reynolds Vetoes Eminent Domain Bill, Says It Goes Too Far

June 12, 2025

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Conner Hendricks and KWQC Staff (KWQC) Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill that would restrict the use of eminent domain for carbon-capture pipelines on Wednesday.

The bill required that projects requesting to use eminent domain serve the public’s interest. Supporters said the proposed Summit Carbon Capture Pipeline doesn’t fit that requirement because a private company owns it.

Reynolds said she respects both sides of the issue, and when eminent domain is used, it has to be fair and a last resort.

She said this bill goes further than just eminent domain protections and threatens Iowa’s economy and energy reliability.

A fight in the legislature may continue, as lawmakers could try and override her veto.

The bill passed the House overwhelmingly, but it barely passed in the Senate, which means a veto override is unlikely.

Reynolds issued a full statement on the veto. READ MORE

Related articles

Iowans react to Gov. Reynolds vetoing eminent domain bill: While some Iowans say the bill would have led to the driving up of energy costs for consumers, others say it would have protected landowner's rights. (KCCI; includes VIDEO)
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines’ use of eminent domain -- House GOP leadership initiates request to reconvene Legislature over issue (Iowa Capital Dispatch)
Gov. Reynolds vetoes Iowa’s eminent domain bill -- Reynolds says the bill goes farther than eminent domain reform (KTIV; includes VIDEO)
Reynolds blocks legislation restricting eminent domain, a key victory for Summit's carbon pipeline project (KCCI; includes VIDEO)
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoes bill on eminent domain, pipelines and property rights -- Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley, a fellow Republican, has asked state lawmakers to sign a petition calling for a special legislative session to override the governor’s veto (The Gazette; includes AUDIO)
Reynolds vetoes bill restricting eminent domain for pipelines. Special session possible. (Des Moines Register)
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds rejects GOP bill to increase regulations on carbon dioxide pipeline (CBS)
Iowa Landowners Outraged at Gov. Kim Reynolds’ Veto of Property Rights Pipeline Bill (Pipeline Fighters Hub)

Excerpt from KCCI: For some people, like Iowa Renewable Fuels Association policy Director Nathan Hohnstein, the governor’s vetoing of HF 639 brings about a sigh of relief.

“We have to thank the governor for actually looking into the bill—looking into the details of the bill,” said Hohnstein.

However, for others who have been working on getting legislation like HF 639 passed for years, like Shelby County landowner Sherri Webb, the move is disappointing.

“We have a legacy in our family. 125 years that land has been in our family,” said Webb. “Her legacy is that she took business and big money over the farmers and the landowners.”

The bill would have made it so companies had to follow new insurance requirements and put a limit of 25 years on a pipeline’s permit. It would have also required companies to prove they were a “common carrier” in order to use eminent domain to build pipeline projects.

“It was going to drive up costs—energy costs—on consumers,” said Hohnstein. “It was going to drive up inputs on farmers. When you look around, it’s not the time to do that.”

Gov. Reynolds addressed her decision in a letter shared Wednesday. She noted she respects both sides of the debate and shares “the bill’s goal of protecting landowners.”

However, she also wrote, “good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn’t."

In the letter, the governor also wrote that the bill sets a “troubling precedent that threatens Iowa’s energy reliability, economy, and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence."

...

The Governor also provided what she wrote was an example in the letter, writing that the bill would block a pipeline project that uses only voluntary easements. In her letter, she noted “Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy (SIRE) is in the final stages of connect to a CO2 pipeline with not a single acre condemned. Yet new insurance mandates and an arbitrary 25-year limit that HF 639 places on CO2 pipelines would effectively kill the project—despite the millions that have already been spent on its development.”

...

Iowa legislators have shared their reaction to Governor Reynolds vetoing the bill. Their statements can be found here. READ MORE

Excerpt from Iowa Capital Dispatch: House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely.

House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain.

...

“It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,” Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto.

Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its “leadership position” as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets.

Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota.

Reynolds said the bill would stop Iowa from leading in biofuels

Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels.

In a statement following the governor’s veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face “very real, very severe economic consequences.”

“This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,” Shaw said. “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. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.”

A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins.

Farmers “need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa’s agricultural industry and economy,” the statement said.

Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed.

“Eminent domain” allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities.

Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska’s Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill’s insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa.

...

Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her “thoughtful and thorough review” of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project “opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America’s energy dominance for the long term.”

“Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,” a spokesperson said in the statement. “We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.”

Reynolds said more needs to be done to limit the use of eminent domain

...

Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a “debate as old as the Republic.”

...

“I’ve consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,” Reynolds said. “But HF 639 isn’t just about eminent domain.”

Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that “threatens” the state’s “energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.”

...

The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline.

...

Reynolds said the bill would impact “more than just CO2 infrastructure” and would change permitting rules “across the board,” giving “uncertainty into critical energy projects.”

Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements “untenable.”

The American Petroleum Institute’s Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had “unprecedented and unfeasible requirements” that would have hindered future projects in the state.

“Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,” Karbo said. “We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.”

...

The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. READ MORE

Excerpt from KCCI: Reynolds said she shares the bill's goal of protecting landowners, but that the policy didn't "draw clear, careful lines."

"Iowa leads the nation in biofuels. We are at the forefront of turning corn into low-carbon energy -- a leadership position we risk losing if we block the infrastructure that makes it possible. Other Midwestern states, like Nebraska, Illinois and North Dakota, are already moving forward with carbon-capture projects that would put Iowa at a competitive disadvantage if this bill became law," she said.

...

Though she vetoed HF 639 in its entirety, Reynolds is asking the Iowa Utilities Commission to implement two provisions that were in the bill – requiring all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensuring at least one commissioner attends every informational meeting.

Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota.

The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. READ MORE