1/29/26 Senate Commerce Subcommittee 

SF2067

Senator Bousselot, chair

Senator Klimesh

Senator Peterson

Sen Bousselot

…of eminent domain. Senator Klimesh, do you have any opening remarks? 

Sen Klimesh 

Not at this point in time. 
Thank you. Senator Peterson, do you have any opening remarks?

Sen Peterson

Uh, I have a lot of questions after reading the bill and, um, uh, reading the public comment, but because there are so many people in the room, I’ll let them go first. 

 

Sen Bousselot


Very good. So, what I will do is ask my colleagues to move your microphones to each of the sides, beside you for those chairs, to maximize both the ability to hear from folks, and that way, these microphones can pick up the sound from, uh, my microphone box. So, that way, we can hear from everybody, and I’ll turn it over to you first, if you’d like to. 
Just please come up to that chair to use that microphone. Turn the microphone on with the little button on the right. Should turn up red. 
And that way, the sound will get picked up. And knowing that there’s a number of people here, you know, please try and keep your points, make your point, but please make it as brief as possible, so we can hear from as many people as possible in the allotted time. Thank you.

 

From audience

 
And there are often people on Zoom that may want to speak. 

Sen Bousselot

Yeah, and if I’ll do my best to get to them. 

Cindy Hansen, Landowner

Thank you. 
My name is Cynthia Hansen. I’m a century farm owner in Shelby County, Iowa. This bill, Senator Klimesh’s pipeline plan to protect property rights, is actually a bill to advance and protect pipeline companies’ rights. 
This bill opens up a larger pool of landowners for the companies to choose from, but it does nothing to protect unwilling landowners from the threat of or the use of eminent domain. The timeline limits in this bill that landowners are given are not realistic. New landowners need time to understand the pros and cons of this pipeline, and to schedule an appointment with an attorney, to get these easements read and interpreted before making a lifelong decision. 
There is so much in this bill that needs addressed, but I know that the majority of the committee members already has its marching orders on how to vote, which is a shame because you have campaigned to bring your constituents’ voices to the Capitol, to represent them, to uphold the constitutions of the U.S. and of Iowa, to uphold your party’s platform, which includes protecting property rights. The landowners that you see here today represent the hundreds of Iowa, landowners, and the thousands of landowners across the Midwest that will be affected by your decisions and your vote. I cannot tell you how to vote. 
But what you do to landowners here today and in full committee, will live on and be remembered for good or for bad. 

Sen Bousselot

Thank you. Anyone over here? 

Dylan Gramlich, Labor’s Union


Good morning, senators. My name is Dylan Gramlich. I am a member of and represent the Labor’s International Union of North America. 
We are a mostly private sector union that specializes in all forms of construction, and we have roughly 3,500 members throughout the state of Iowa. LIUNA strongly supports the Summit Pipeline Project, and we support Senate file, a 2067, introduced by, uh, majority leader, Klimesh. Because it’s finally a practical approach that moves this project forward while respecting landowners’ rights. 
Senate File 2067, more specifically, the corridor expansion language, gives projects the ability to route around land owners who do not want to participate while proceeding with land owners who voluntarily choose to sign easements. In plain terms, it respects no and it protects the right to say yes. Additionally, Summit has committed to using Iowa Union labor during the construction phase of its project. 
Internal estimates have come out with our members, our trade alone, getting over 2 million man and woman hours out of this project, which is the equivalent of roughly an entire construction season for some of our members. That translates directly to thousands of Iowa trades workers earning middle class sustaining wages and benefits. These are Iowans who are heavy equipment operators, pipe welders, truck drivers, and laborers. 
Well, you know, members have been experiencing an increase in energy related projects, as demands rise, when we diversify production and delivery, we see ourselves as a part of the solution. We are the safest and most skilled pipeline workforce, our safety and training programs lead to industry, while collective bargaining agreements prioritize local hiring halls. We thank you for your time and your approach to this piece of legislation. 
Thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselot

Thank you. Go ahead. 

 

Layne Rasmussen reading for Marty Maher, Landowner


I’m Layne Rasmussen. I am a landowner in Montgomery County, with farmland in the proposed path of the Summit pipeline. I’m going to read a statement from Marty Maher, who is not able to join us today. morning. 
I am Martin Maher, president of Maher Farms, Incorporated. We have property in Page County, Iowa, where Summit Carbon intends to use eminent domain to secure an easement so as to install a high pressure carbon pipeline. The route they have chosen does not go straight through our property, but starts at the south edge of said property, going slightly northwest, crosses a small deep creek, then turns north east significantly, until it takes a slight turn to the north, where it exits. 
In other words, the proposed line meanders around our farm for over a quarter mile, going from west to east all the while, going south to north, before entering the neighbor’s farm. Once their pipe would be buried, only the pipeline company will be able to find its location, meaning that we people farming the land will have little idea of where danger might be located. Additionally, where the pipeline is scheduled to enter our property, we have a residence 300 feet west of the pipeline, and a grain bin complex 300 feet east of said pipeline. 
I, my children, and grandchildren will be walking, driving, tilling, and working next to the pipeline, which, accordingly, according to plume, modeling, we all will be in the kill zone if a rupture happens to occur in that vicinity. I offered to let Summit Carbon go around the perimeter of the farm, but they ignored that offer. I met with three land agents and tried different approaches, but Summit Carbon wanted to stick to the route. 
Finally, one of Summit’s engineers, named Grant, along with a construction engineer and a land agent, met with me. I refused their monitory offer for the easement, and Grant insinuated that I should accept their offer, or else they would acquire easement by other means. I understood that he meant the use of eminent domain to take my property.

 

Colin Gordon, Iowa Renewable Fuels Assoc

 
Uh… Good afternoon. Good morning, members of the subcommittee, Chairman Klimesh, Chairman Bousselot, and Leader Klimesh, and Senator Peterson. 
Thank you for your time. My name is Colin Gordon. Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. 
We are registered in support of Senate File 2067. This bill might not be exactly what IRFA would draft if we were king for a day, but we do feel that it is a pragmatic and reasonable compromise that strikes a good balance and is actually something that could become law. IRFA has consistently supported proposals that would enhance landowner protections, make the permitting process more flexible, and ultimately let projects find a path forward. 
We believe that to be the case with this bill. Specifically, we’re in support of two provisions in the bill. First, to allow companies to hold meetings, to share general details about a proposed project, with landowners and answer questions. 
Although we do not support allowing negotiations before the required county public informational meeting, which this bill prohibits. So we’re in line with that. This will help developers find a route with the most interested landowners from the very beginning and build an educated map. 
Second, it would allow companies to seek voluntary easements within five miles on either side of the IUC corridor or anywhere within the affected county. We expect that expanding the corridor will nearly eliminate the use of eminent domain when building a project like this, although there are, of course, unavoidable situations when you’re building any kind of multi state or linear infrastructure project. These two provisions will dramatically reduce even the thought of eminent domain by allowing companies to draw a more thoughtful route on the front end with a wider corridor providing further flexibility once the route is determined. 
While this bill applies to many different projects over the coming years, we know there is one current project that has been proposed. As noted in a recent study published by DIS, which is a leading Iowa ag research firm. This project, if completed, would bring in billions of dollars in investment and economic development, open new markets for Iowa farmers, and set up the next generation to succeed. 
We believe that SF 2067 will enable the infrastructure needed to accomplish all of these goals. We encourage you to support this build. Thank you. 

 

Keith Whelan, Landowner


Good morning. My name is Keith Wheeland. I from Jessup, Iowa. 
I’m one of the individuals who would have been allowed to intervene under last year’s Senate File 639. I want to remind folks that Iowa code chapter 68B, mandates the public officials, employees, candidates, avoid conflicts of interest. This includes the appearance of impropriety. 
68B .2A, paragraph 1B, describes outside employment or activity that involves the receipt of, promise of, or acceptance of money, or other considerations, by the person or a member of the person’s immediate family, from anyone other than the state, or the performance of any act that that person would be required to expect it to perform as a part of the person’s regular duties, or during the hours of which the persons perform service or work for the state, or the political subdivision of the state. I appreciate your time. 

 

Nathan Halsign, Iowa Corn Growners Assoc

Good morning. 
Thank you, uh, sir, for, uh, I want to speak today. My name is Nathan Halsign. I’m with the Iowa Corn Growers Association. 
You represent over 7500 family farms across the state. Um, we are registered in support of Senate File 2067. Um, we think that, uh, of all the legislation, we’ve seen, this, this office at least a good balance approach that our membership has, has asked for. 
Is it perfect? No. But I think this is a great starting point for our members. 
Um, I would like to, um, highlight that right now, um, I think everybody’s seen, uh, the struggles that corn growers are having across the state and across the country. Um, our membership’s been pretty clear that they’re having tough conversations right now with their bankers, trying to decide if they’re gonna be able to farm next year. 
And so, we need to be able, here in Iowa, to grow markets and be able to access markets that have that future demand opportunities. Um, I know there’s been a lot of discussion, if it’s here or not, um, but right now, when the price of corns below the cost of production, um, farmers and their family farms are on online, uh, for potential never be able to, to, um, harvest and plant and harvest those, um, those fields. So, we’re hopeful that this continues, and the process can continue, and, um, like I said, we’re registered, and thankful for at least trying to find common ground approach. 
And, um, thank you for your time. 

 

Steve Kenkel, former Shelby Co Supervisor & farmer

Morning, thanks for this opportunity today. My name is Steve Kenkel. 
I’m a fifth generation farmer, and former supervisor from Shelby County. I’m registered against this bill today, but I’m not against the corridor. Um, I see some opportunities there. 
What I’m against is the abuse of property rights, and you are not an abuse of eminent domain. We seem to have a double standard here in this state on property rights. Here we have an example of roughly 30% of the ethanol plants in Iowa are not participating in this pipeline. 
That’s free enterprise. That’s a business decision. They have a right not to participate, for whatever reason, they want. 
Then on the other side, we have 87,000 farmers in Iowa. That’s a business. 96%, 96% of those 87,000 are family operations just like I have. But yet, the business decision they want to make for their farm, you guys are not acknowledging that. 
They’re property rights. You’re wanting to negotiate the percentage of eminent domain, property rights. What are we doing here? 
I mean, you just took an oath in office, like I did when I ran for supervisor, to uphold the Constitution. I didn’t know property rights were for sale.

 

Jake Ketzner, Summit Carbon Solutions

 Good morning. 
Uh, Jake Ketzner with, uh, Summit Carbon Solutions. We’re registered undecided on the bill. We thank the leader and his Republican and Democratic colleagues for their continued work on this issue. 
Summit Carbon Solutions has requested a clean corridor expansion bill, and that is not what this bill does. While the bill does expand the corridor, we oppose the parts that create new processes, because this will raise costs and extend timelines. Neither of which this project can support at this time. 
Again, we do thank you for your work on this important issue, and we look forward to continuing to work through this process. I do just want to highlight just a point that was made on the previous speaker on the 30% of ethanol plants that are not participating in this project, virtually all of them are participating where our footprint is. There’s a few, there’s some ethanol plants in far eastern and southeastern Iowa, uh, that are just not geographically near our project, or, or don’t make sense to go, go reach to. 
So we thank you for your time, and as I like to remind people, 1400, Iowa farmers have signed voluntary easement over 1400, have signed voluntary easement agreements with the project, and we’re trying to work very hard to make sure that they have the opportunity to participate in this emerging low carbon market. Thank you. 

 

(Question was asked that couldn’t be heard)

Ketzner

Um, on the phase, I don’t have that exact number. 
I can get it. On the phase one, we’re roughly 74% signed. 

 

Kathy Stockdale, Landowner

Kathy Stockdale from Hardin County 
Um, senate file 2067 reduces transparency. It reduces existing landowner rights and it allows big government to get involved in private matters. Senator Klemish, we know it’s your intent to move this bill forward. 
We’re asking you to listen to us. We’ve been here for five years. We have already compromised from banning carbon pipelines altogether to now allowing them to be built as long as it’s on consenting land only. 
Legislators can stop telling us what we need and start listening to what we need. We can debate process and procedure after you protect our property rights. Those people that signed with Summit had the right to say yes, we should have the right to say no. 
Thank you. 

 

James B – Heavy Equipment Union

James Beyonce with Heavy Highway Contractors Association. Um, in Iowa, ethanol is a subsidized industry. 
We have a gas tax that subsidizes ethanol. Um, over 58% of our corn goes to ethanol. Um, Ultimately, we support this bill because of the, they’re committed to using union labor, um, 2 million man hours, a lot go with the labor is that is over an entire season of construction. 
Um, so we stand in support of this bill. 

 

Marjorie Swan for Austin Palmquist

I’m Marjorie Swan, and my sister, Ramona Jean Rider, have farm ground in Wright County, in the path of phase one, Summit’s pipeline. I am speaking for another farmer. 
Eric Palmquist (later corrected to Austin Palmquist). He is a sixth generation Montgomery County Iowa farmer. 
No one is paying him to speak up. Matter of fact, he had to take time out of his morning chores, only not only to not be allowed the right to speak. My neighbors and others affected by this abomination. 
Private gain for a private company, for a private project, is in the territory of only a communist or socialist, would think this is okay. The Iowa Republican platform is against eminent domain for a project such as this bill. Yet here we are. 
This bill does not stop a project such as this from occurring. It just doesn’t allow, it just doesn’t allow eminent domain for it. Anyone that says otherwise is just a plain liar. 
Summit could have had their project up and going years ago, but they weren’t willing to spend the money that was really necessary to make it happen. So they only have themselves to blame. My county has zero signed easements on phase two, best of his knowledge. 
One more thing, the Ten Commandments used to hang on the wall of our capitol. Even those that don’t practice any faith would say they’re good guidelines. And as a Christian, they’re rules to live by. Commandment One: They have let money become their God. Commandment 6: they carry utter disregard if people die for this project. Commandment 8: 
They are not afraid to steal from people with less money than them with help of government coalition. Commandment 9: they’re willing to lie to others, to either sugarcoat, circumstances, at best, or gaslight at worst. And then Commandment 10: they’re coveting property, which is not theirs, a lust for money and power that will never be able to be satisfied. 

 


And just a reminder, we do have some people on Zoom that would like to speak, thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselo

Anyone else over here? Anyone else on this side of the room want to speak? 
Oh, please. If you can, uh, make your way to the microphone while the other side is speaking, so that way, we can keep the process moving orderly, and I can get to folks online. Thank you. 

 

Terry Pierce, Citizen


Um, I’m a former union member too. I don’t see that, uh, it has should have reflect too much, uh, influence on this hearing, because, uh… Or… 
Oh, sorry, Terry Pierce from West Des Moines, Iowa. Um, I don’t live on a farm, an urban, uh, dweller, but I have constitutional rights too. And I think to use eminent domain, for this purpose, is unconstitutional. 
Once we go down that road, where is that? Where’s the line going to be next? What else is gonna be? 
Think that they have a right to use eminent domain,  if our economy built on capitalism, um, is not good enough for them. They think that they, uh, deserve some special treatment. 
The, uh, and the carbon pipeline is not a utility. It doesn’t… a utility is… something that can be, um… well, I lost my place here, but… it is not a utility. It’s not something we can, uh, buy the product, or we can, we can have it piped to our house, to use it, for a need to live on, or even it, to provide comfort. 
It’s, it has no, um, utility value at all. And so, to use eminent domain for this at all, I think is a unconstitutional move. It shouldn’t even be entertained. 
So what I’m saying is, we should not allow eminent domain whatsoever for this. We should allow capitalism to determine the route, the where they put it, what it’s for, everything else. Eminent domain whatsoever. And even as a last resort, it shouldn’t even be used at all for this purpose. 
Thank you. 

 

Wally Taylor, Sierra Club

Thank you. Now, I’m Wally Taylor. 
I’m the, uh, legal chair for the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club. And I want to just, uh, address one point, and that is the proposed 10 mile corridor, uh, in this bill. I think that’s a distraction. 
Currently, there is no corridor set out in the Iowa Code or Utility Commission rules. The pipeline company determines how wide the corridor is. So, at this point, someone could have a 10 mile a corridor, they could have 20 miles, they could have 50 miles. 
But I suspect they don’t want a wide corridor. They don’t want to have so many more people opposed to their project. They don’t want to have to weave around a wide corridor in order to find voluntary easements. 
So I think this is just a real distraction in this bill, um, and, um… Apparently, Summit doesn’t even like this bill. I was surprised to hear Mr. Ketzner say that, so I think that should tell you something. 
Thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselot

You guys can take your microphone. Do you want to speak? 
Yeah, please. This will be our last one, and then I’m gonna go. We got four hands up online. 
I’m gonna need… My eyes aren’t as good as they used to be. I’m gonna guess on the dames, but I might need… need some help. 

 

Catherine Pollard, Iowa Farmers Union


Thank you, Senators. My name is Catherine Pollard. on behalf of the Iowa Farmers Union. The Farmers Union is fundamentally opposed to the use of eminent domain for private gain. 
We would also like to point out that Summit has already explored some options about alternative routes to no success, and we just don’t think this bill ultimately protects property owners. So for that reason, we would ask the subcommittee to not advance it. Thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselot


Uh, all right, so, it looks like we have hands. Pardon me? So, yeah. 
Thanks, Kathy. I appreciate that. You know, my age is showing. 
Um… You’re closer, but the record reflect. I, uh, so just for the admonition of everyone else online, please raise your hand if you wish to speak. 
We will then ask you to unmute, and once we ask you to unmute, I’ll acknowledge you and, uh, we will go from there. And Julie was the first one that somebody tells me that’s the name. I’m gonna believe it. 
It looks like I can see the J, so I’ll ask you to unmute. 

 

Um, I think I’m unmuted. Can you hear me? 

 


We can hear you, yes. 

 

Julie Glade, Landowner

Okay. All right, my name is Julie Glade. 
Um, I’m an affected landowner in Wright County, by Summit’s, um, pipeline. I just wanted to say, this bill does not, in any way, vindicate and safeguard the property rights of all Iowans, including those who prefer not to accommodate the construction of a pipeline on their land. I am one of those landowners who have made it abundantly clear that I do not wish to accommodate Summit, and their destructive and dangerous pipeline on my land. 
I testified to that under oath at the IUC hearings, and Summit has made no attempt to even contact me and negotiate. So what in this bill changes anything? All they have to do is claim that moving the pipeline off my property is economically infeasible due to excessive acquisition causes. 
These are all quoted directly from the bill. Because it will cost them millions of dollars. And please, someone to find clear and convincing evidence. 
There’s absolutely no incentive for Summit to change any of their business practices when they can continue to wield power of eminent domain. This bill is nothing but a smokescreen and a gift to Summit. Thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselot


Thank you, Julie. Colleen, Tucker, we’re gonna ask you to unmute. My eyes did not get better. 
I was given a little assistance. Uh, we’re running, you know, we’re gonna try and get through all four of the folks who had their hands up, and please keep, keep it moving, uh, so that we can keep this timely in the Senate on schedule, which is a Sisophian endeavor. Colleen, are you ready? 

 


Yes, can you hear me? 

Yes, ma’am. 

 

Colleen Tucker, Landowner

Okay, thank you so much for letting me speak. 
Um, we need to call this project what it is. It’s an economic development project. It’s not a utility. 
It does not deliver CO2 to homes, businesses, or farms. We do not use the CO2. We can’t forget about the farmers. 
The farmers create employment opportunities year after year, not through a one time construction project. Farmers are small businesses, and we are being asked to support a private business project that we did not ask for. Temporary construction jobs cannot justify the permanent taking of private property. 
Government is not tasked from picking winners and losers, and short term employment cannot justify the permanent, and it’s permanent taking of private property. Please do not allow this bill to go through. 
It doesn’t protect us from the eminent domain abuse. That’s what we want. We want the right to say, no, thank you. 
Thanks for letting me speak. 

 

Sen Bousselot

Thank you, Miss Tucker, for joining us. Mr. Palmquist, you are next on my list. 
Gonna ask you to unmute. Uh, and we’re running up against our 30 minutes, so please share your thoughts. 

 

Austin Palmquist, Landowner

Just a point of information, it was not Eric Palmquist. 
I don’t remember the woman who spoke, who read my statement. I appreciate it, but it was not Eric Palmquist. It was Austin Palmquist, from Montgomery County. 
That was me. And just for a point of information, I do sympathize with unions. But like someone else alluded to, economic development is not suitable. It’s unconstitutional to use eminent domain. 
And I am sympathetic for one big reason. I am a member of NFO. I’m not here to represent them. 
But I am a member, so I do sympathize in that regard. That’s all. I just wanted that point of information out there. 

 

Sen Bousselot


Thank you, Mr. Palmquist, for the clarification. Uh, Ms. McGrath. Uh, we’re gonna ask you to unmute, and… please give us your thoughts. 
Bear with us, the Internet is… not as fast as we are. First time for everything. Bev, can you hear us, and can you speak up to see if we can hear you? 
I see, I… Pardon me? Okay, Emma, do you can you try? 
We’re gonna try and ask Emma to unmute.

 

 Can you hear me? 

Emma, you are… 
We can hear you loud and clear. Please, uh, go ahead. 

 

Emma Schmit, Bold Alliance

Wonderful, thank you, Senator. 
Um, I would just echo a lot of the points that landowners have raised today and add that, we keep hearing that this bill is the compromise bill, but this is not a compromise, right? Instead would simply expand the amount of Iowans that can be abused by eminent domain. 
Which is not what we’re going for, right? But when we started this entire discussion, our side started at we don’t want carbon pipelines at all. We have compromised and said, okay, you can build a carbon pipeline so long as it is on the land of consenting landowners. 
What’s being offered today in this bill doesn’t give us anything. It’s not, it’s not a negotiation because it’s not what any land openers are asking for. It’s really unfortunate, and I hope that the senators will understand where landowners are coming from and be willing to actually listen to what is being asked of you, to take real action and provide a real solution, which this bill is not it. 
Um, because, you know, if you actually believe the idea that the corridor is the solution to this problem, then you would, at the same time, support no eminent domain for carbon pipelines because you wouldn’t need eminent domain if the corridor is the real solution. So at the end of the day, I hope you will take the time to truly listen to islands instead of telling us what you think we need. Thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselot


Thank you, Emma. So we started a few minutes late. We’ve gone a few minutes over, so I’m gonna go to closing remarks for my colleagues, and I’ll 1st give the floor to Senator Peterson here in order. 

 

Sen Peterson


Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I am not planning to support the legislation today, um, and I want to thank everybody for your time this week for a very unusual, um, process on the legislation that we have before us this year. Um, some of my main concerns with the legislation, um, deal with the things that have been brought forward that it actually expands the opportunity for a corporation to use eminent domain, um, and, um, countywide in the project, in the project region, it also appears to be very lopsided, um, in favor of the corporation, uh, over landowners, not only landowners, but also Iowans in general, one of my biggest concerns in the bill is on page 6, line 12 through 14. 
Um, that says all of the data in the filing made under paragraph E shall be held confidential and should not be subject to disclosure in response to a request under Iowa’s, um, open records request. And, uh, I, I simply have, uh, just completely disagree with, uh, that information being withheld, um, not only from landowners, but from Iowans, from the media. Um, in favor of a corporation. 
I also have a number of other questions in the process. One of the reasons why they might be able to, um, go ahead with, um, um, taking over the land deals with economic, um, infeasibility, but that’s not defined. I mean, I know pipelines are expensive. 
Who’s gonna be calling the shots on what’s economically feasible and not? So, I fail to see where the compromise here is in this legislation, and for that reason, I’m gonna be a no today. Thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselot


Thank you, Senator Peterson. Senator Klemish. 

 

Sen Klimesh

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Well, to answer a couple of the questions that Senator Peterson brought up, the confidentiality part was actually built in to protect the landowners themselves, from having their information as part of the negotiations and conversations, when they were, um, contacted to potentially find a voluntary easement. It wasn’t to protect anybody but the landowners. That how that’s structured in that. 
If you read above it, I think you’d see this all linked together, Senator. 

Uh, economic feasibility, to answer your question on that too. So who makes the determination? 
The way the bill is structured is, and again, I’ve been saying this from day one. The way the bill is structured is prior to them even going to request the authority to utilize eminent domain. They have to prove to the IUC that they’ve exhausted all potential voluntary easement parcels in the corridor. 
I’ve heard some stuff in the chamber today or in the hearing today. This does not expand. This bill does not expand the number of folks in the state of Iowa, that would be impacted by eminent domain. Actually, it does the other thing. It ensures that if you encounter a landowner, who does not wish to have a conversation or enter into a voluntary easement agreement with the company building the infrastructure. 

And again, we need to talk about the perspective. 
This exists in code section 479B. So, what does 479B encompass, right? It encompasses this list of hazardous liquid materials. So it encompasses crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gases, and hydrous ammonia, liquid fertilizers, liquefied carbon dioxide, alcohols, and coal slurries. 
So, the hazardous liquid pipeline section of the Iowa code, while our conversation is specifically being targeted here today on a carbon sequestration pipeline, this bill provides remedies for all those sort of pipeline infrastructure projects. 

The nexus for our conversation here actually starts with the Dakota Access Pipeline, certain use, right? It was built in northwest Iowa. 
And it traveled 200 miles or so, and it led to a Supreme Court case, challenging the ability to utilize eminent domain. So, as we look at this, not looking at it in a vacuum is important from my perspective. Looking at finding solutions for all hazards of good pipelines, and give the power back to the landowners to have the ability to say no, and give the power to the pipeline companies, building that infrastructure, the ability to find voluntary easements, and willing landowners outside the notice corridor. 
That’s what this bill does. This bill does not expand in that voluntary easement corridor, which is what it’s called in the bill, a voluntary easement corridor, does not expand the ability for those companies, utilize eminent domain. They have to find voluntary easement paths around folks that don’t engage in a conversation or, you know, benefit financially, monetarily, from that easement, but it allows those companies to find landowners that want to benefit financially from that easement, and have the ability to stitch together, volunteer easement corridors, to build infrastructure. 
This is not a new idea. 

Iowa, I firmly believe, we regulated ourselves into this position by eliminating access to the notice corridor only, right? Other states either have no notice corridor provisions, or they allow variations from the corridor to do just what this bill does. 
Find willing participants and landowners to engage in voluntary easements with. Again, I’ve referenced this project numerous times. Pipeline was built through Kansas and Colorado, but they bring jet fuel to Denver International Airport, about 240 miles of pipe. 
That pipeline was constructed in those two states that have similar regulatory environments, that this bill creates, and they used eminent domain zero times.

 And we’ve had a lot of conversations in this capitol over the last four years about potential solutions. And I’m going to refer back to what was sent in file 2097 introduced two years ago. 
A house file component was also introduced at that point in time. Passed out of the house, sent over to the Senate, and that bill created a 90% threshold. What that bill did was, they said, once a pipeline company achieved 90% voluntary easements, they were able to utilize eminent domain to cross the last 10% of those parcels, right? 
And again, what you’re doing there is, you are simply saying, those 10% of folks, it’s okay, I’m gonna eminent domain them. It’s okay to roll right over them. The bill in front of us today does not do that. 
The bill in front of us today requires those pipeline companies to continue to seek voluntary easements in the voluntary easement corridor. So it adds additional protections. 

The bill also puts the keys for the conversations in the hand of landowners. 
You have the right to say no. If a landman comes to your door, you want to talk to him anymore, you tell him no. You have the right to say that. 
They can’t contact you. They can offer to contact you via phone, via certified letter, via mail, uh, and then you have the ability to restart those negotiations. If you change your mind. 
Again, we’re putting those keys back in the han of landowners. 

And at the end of the day, you know, the economic impact for this project, I’ve heard this conversation, and I’ve been really clear in my messaging. You know, CO2 has been used for enhanced oil recovery in this country for over 20 years. 
There are right now over 200 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered in this country, and states like Wyoming and North Dakota, Texas, Permian basin, and Wyoming has about 3 billion barrels alone. So, the ability for this product to open up additional low carbon ethanol markets for Iowa farmers, which we’ve heard today are struggling, and additional markets for enhanced oil recovery, which aligns ourselves with President Trump’s goals for energy dominance in this country. I think are essential to Iowa farmers. 
We raised a record number of bushels of corn this last year. Iowa farmers need to find additional access to markets. 

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. It 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. I see this as an extension from conversations we’ve had under the dome here for the last four years. 
This bill, again, not unique to Iowa, this methodology is approached, is not unique to Iowa. It provides us a solution in a path forward. I’ll be voting, signing off to advance this bill today. 
Thank you. 

 

Sen Bousselot

Thank you, Senator Klemish. First, I wanna thank everyone who joined us today. 
Uh, thank you for coming. Thank you for sharing your input on this piece of legislation. I want to thank the folks online as well. 
And I want to thank both the folks online and the folks here in person, for the tone and tenor of the conversation. I’ve said it before, but I think it bears repeating. that I am incredibly appreciative of the process that has involved legislatively, but especially appreciative of the way the debate has the tone of the debate between the sides, and to me personally, I won’t speak for my colleagues, but to me personally. When I, uh, first started around the Iowa legislature, a mentor of mine, told, admonished me for my lack of patience. 
And he said, Michael, oftentimes great ideas in this building, and the first year, they don’t even make it out of committee. And the second year, they don’t even make it out of the chamber. In the third year, they might make it out of one chamber, but not two. 
The fourth year, you start to get somewhere. And after about five years, when that same bill that was proposed five years ago passes, everyone looks at one another and says, Why the heck didn’t we do this five years ago? 

The process legislatively is meant to take time. 
It is meant to be thoughtful, collaborative, which I think today’s subcommittee has been, and it’s meant to, and I shared this with some colleagues of mine the other day, and I was honored to read a prayer for the Iowa Senate, and I shared the 1st chapter of James in that prayer where they talk about the trials and tribulations. It did not look at the trials and tribulations as, uh, an obstacle, but as something that is going to build you and build you in your faith. And the trials and tribulations are part of the legislative process. 


This subcommittee, and today, is another step in the legislative process. And I am, I am pleased, uh, to be working with people and to be working on a bill, but be working on a bill with people who would rather do something than be somebody. It is my fervent hope and desire that we get something done this session. 
Over the number of years that I’ve worked on this, I’ve only worked on it for two years as chairman of Commerce, and in both of those years, we’ve had subcommittees and moved bills out of committee, and allowed that process, the legislative process, which I treasure, to work.

 And I’ve learned about the issue, and as we heard today from folks on both sides, the nature of the debate around this issue has changed. There’s been times where the conversation has focused on safety. 
There’s been times where it’s focused on my land, and I want to do what I want to do. There’s been times where the focus, the conversation has focused on not having any eminent domain for private gain. 

As we’ve heard today, much of the debate from folks is on, uh, focused on one type of project, and the bills that have, you know, come over, or a lot of the proposals, have not been about, have been more focused, rather, on killing or not allowing the same rights for one type of project versus others. 
And they’ve done it because they don’t like the project as a whole. That’s fair. They’ve done it because they disagree with federal policy. 
That’s fair. Or they’ve done it because they don’t want the Supreme Court to have judicial review over whether or not something is a utility. Again, entirely fair. 
From my perspective, this is a bill that is meant to do something. It is meant to avoid and to end the use of eminent domain, and it is meant to strengthen private property rights. 

As we’ve heard from both sides. 
Is the bill perfect? I won’t ask Senator Klimesh to yield and give us his opinion. But I believe that, as part of the legislative process, there will still be work done on this bill. 
This is one step in that process. We’ve heard from the public today. 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. And with that, I will conclude the subcommittee for send a file 2067 and thank everyone and my colleagues.

Adjourned 11:47am

Thank you Jan Norris for putting this together!