A Senate Republican leader introduced two pieces of legislation Jan. 20 to address ongoing issues with property rights and eminent domain.
One bill would allow hazardous liquid pipeline operators to choose alternative routes to avoid the use of eminent domain and another would place a severance tax on sequestered carbon dioxide.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh (R-Spillville) said to members of the media that he believes the bills will provide “abundant and affordable energy” while allowing Iowans to “exercise their private property rights,” allow private investments to help the state grow and “accelerate Iowa’s path to zero income tax.”
“I believe the proposals we are introducing today in the Senate will get us to the point where we all but eliminate the need for utilizing eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines or any other (hazardous liquid) pipelines, while still recognizing the fact that Iowa needs to have investment in linear infrastructure, but also recognizing the importance of landowner rights,” Klimesh said.
The Senate bills differ from a bill filed and advanced by House Republicans that would ban carbon sequestration pipelines from using eminent domain. Lobbyists for Summit Carbon Solutions, an Iowa-based company seeking to build a carbon capture and sequestration pipeline through the state, said the House bill would kill the Summit pipeline project.
Landowners and lawmakers in support of the House bill have said it is the best way to protect private property rights from a project they argue is not a public use.
Corn farmers and ethanol producers in favor of carbon sequestration pipelines said the Senate bill would help the project secure as many voluntary easements as possible to get the project done.
Kelly Nieuwenhuis, an O’Brien County farmer, said he and his brothers have signed contracts for more than three miles of easements with Summit and he hopes other landowners can do the same if the Senate’s bill is successful.
“We’ve had great negotiations with (Summit), great communications and no issues at all, so I’m hoping more people find that same situation, and so we can find people are willing to have the project go across their property,” Nieuwenhuis said while at the Iowa State Capitol to speak with lawmakers about the Summit project.
Widening the corridors
Klimesh said under Senate File 2067, eminent domain—or the taking of private property with just compensation for public use—would be a “last resort” for hazardous liquid pipelines.
Rather than stick directly with their Iowa Utilities Commission approved routes, hazardous liquid pipeline operators, not just carbon sequestration pipeline operators, would be able to “actively pursue alternative routes” with landowners within a voluntary easement corridor. Klimesh explained this corridor included land anywhere within the county or within five miles of the initially proposed route.
“The Senate Republican caucus doesn’t want eminent domain to be utilized,” Klimesh said. “I mean, we want to try to minimize the impact of eminent domain of building any infrastructure projects.”
Under the bill, a pipeline operator must demonstrate to the Iowa Utilities Commission (IUC) that it “diligently sought to devise a route of voluntary easements” and was unable to do so, before it can request eminent domain power.
Jess Mazour, the conservation program associate with Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, said the proposal from Klimesh “does not address property rights.” The House bill, she said, does protect property rights by blocking the use of eminent domain.
Mazour alleged that Summit has been unwilling to reroute within its existing corridors and wondered what difference a larger corridor, as proposed by Klimesh’s bill, would make.
“A lot of the stuff that he’s saying is simply just a misdirection and a distraction away from the issue at hand, which is property rights, and the ability for someone to say no,” Mazour said. “And that’s not addressed in his bill whatsoever.”
Klimesh argued the bill allows property owners to say no by giving pipeline operators a different option.
“This is a relationship would allow the property owner that does not wish to enter a voluntary easement to say no,” Klimesh said. “Currently under Iowa law, that pipeline company has no other option to go around that landowner—this allows that option to take place.”
The bill also has a provision that would allow landowners to opt out of communications, other than mail, from pipeline operators. Klimesh explained the bill allows a one-year time frame for easement acquisitions, to keep the process from being “open ended.”
According to Klimesh, the bill would affect the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, which was granted a permit by the IUC in 2024, but he said it also applies to other hazardous liquid pipelines that want to cross through Iowa in the future.
Summit, in a statement, said it “remain(s) committed” to working with landowners and lawmakers on solutions that “protect property rights and support rural economies.”
“As proposals like this are considered, it’s important to maintain clarity, respect landowner interests, and avoid limiting economic opportunity for agriculture and rural communities,” the statement said.
Mike Henning, a landowner in Greene County affected by and opposed to the pipeline, said the House bill would protect property rights and allow for the development of carbon pipelines.
“We’ve heard what’s in Sen. Klimesh’s bill and it’s not what landowners have spent five years asking for. Nor is it what Governor Reynolds asked for after vetoing our last piece of legislation,” Henning said in a news release.
The legislature passed a bill to limit the use of eminent domain on carbon sequestration projects in 2025, but Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) vetoed the bill, in part because of its complexity.
The second bill would apply a severance tax—or a tax applied on the removal of natural resources—on the carbon dioxide transported through the pipeline.
Klimesh said this tax revenue would go to Iowa’s Taxpayer Relief Fund to “continue Iowa’s path to zero income tax.” The tax would be applied at a flat fee per metric ton.
States like Wyoming, North Dakota and Texas have severance taxes on oil and gas that is extracted in the state.
Good for corn, “energy dominance”
Klimesh said his legislative proposals will be good for Iowa farmers as carbon capture pipelines are slated to increase demand in the ethanol industry by allowing refineries to more easily participate in the ultra-low carbon ethanol markets.
He noted that farmers logged a record high year for corn production. According to USDA figures, Iowa farmers produce 2.77 billion bushels of corn in 2025. Nearly 60% of Iowa-grown corn goes to the ethanol industry.
“It’s of the utmost importance that we gain access to new low carbon ethanol markets to ensure Iowa farmers and Iowa can not only survive but thrive,” Klimesh said.
Nieuwenhuis said there are additional ways for ethanol plants to reduce their carbon intensity score, a figure which represents the greenhouse gas emissions of a product, but none that do so as intensely as access to a carbon sequestration pipeline.
Klimesh additionally stressed the importance of his legislation as it relates to the Trump administration’s goal for energy dominance.
Language in the federal “One Big Beautiful” law made it so carbon sequestration pipelines can get enhanced tax credits when the CO2 is injected into the ground near existing oil fields in a process called enhanced oil recovery.
The pressure from the CO2 can make oil recovery processes more effective.
While Summit lobbyists also mentioned the prospect of enhanced oil recovery during a subcommittee meeting on the House-proposed bill, the company has not said if it intends to change its route from its current ending destination in North Dakota, to an area with greater potential for enhanced oil recovery.
Klimesh, when asked if he had the necessary votes to pass the bill, said he would not discuss “internal caucus matters.” The issue of eminent domain has caused a level of division within Iowa Republicans, notably from a group of Republican senators who refused to debate budget bills last session until the chamber held debate on the House’s eminent domain bill. — Cami Koons, Iowa Capital Dispatch
Republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
