Pipeline Bill Survives Funnel With Major Amendment From Senators

By Cami Koons

Iowa senators amended and advanced on Wednesday a House bill aimed at protecting private property rights from eminent domain.

House representatives passed the proposed legislation last week which combines a series of bills aimed at reforming the Iowa Utilities Commission and preventing the Summit Carbon Solutions’ pipeline from using eminent domain in the state. 

Sen. Mike Bousselot, R-Ankeny, said the Senate subcommittee meeting on the issue was “long awaited.” 

Bousselot said his goal “has always been” to pass legislation that protected “all landowners” and not just those affected by certain projects, which he alleged House legislation over the past several years has done.

“House File 639, before us today focuses only on creating additional property rights for land impacted by potential hazardous liquid pipelines … but does not take into account all types of pipelines, transmission lines, or power generation,” Bousselot said.

Bousselot proposed an amendment that would remove certain parts of the House bill and add language to “avoid” eminent domain by allowing a project to find voluntary easements outside of the original project corridor. 

Bousselot said this would apply to “any project seeking eminent domain approval before the IUC, including pipelines, transmission lines, and power generation.”

His amendment would also require the Iowa Utilities Commission to make, within one year, a decision on any project that is seeking eminent domain rights.

“By saying that decision needs to be made within one year, there’s plenty of time for fact finding, but it also means, like the court cases that are going on today, those court cases get to court faster,” Bousselot said. 

As passed from the floor, House File 639 would have: 

• Increased the insurance requirements for a hazardous liquid pipeline to cover any damages to property and reimburse landowners for increases in their property insurance premiums due to the pipeline
• Changed the definition of a common carrier, to require a hazardous liquid carrier to establish with “clear and convincing evidence” that it will transport a commodity
• Required an Iowa Utilities Commissioner to be present at all proceedings.
• Allowed any interested party, including lawmakers, to intervene in IUC proceedings
• Restricted the IUC’s ability to sanction intervenors 
• Limited the length of a hazardous liquid pipeline permit to one 25-year term

Bousselot’s proposed amendment would strike the common carrier definition, permit limits, intervenor requirements, and would adjust the insurance requirements. 

The amendment would add a requirement for the “lifetime” repair and replacement costs for drainage tile, crop loss, and soil degradation. Under the proposed amendment landowners would also be able to request, and be granted, a new land representative. 

The amendment retains the requirement that a commissioner from the IUC be present at informational meetings and hearings, and the section on insurance requirements that hold operators responsible for damages caused by the projects. 

Some of the landowners said the contents of Bousselot’s amendment were “a surprise” and they questioned how the landowners outside of the corridor, or the area around a proposed eminent domain project, would be notified. 

Jake Highfill, on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute said the organization was in favor of the corridor change and that it was “common practice” for members of the institute in other states. 

Jake Ketzner, a lobbyist for Summit Carbon Solutions, urged lawmakers to vote against “any piece of legislation that changes the rules in the middle of a project.” 

Ketzner said the company has been suggesting the corridor change Bousselot proposed and appreciated the amendment, noting it would give the project a route forward in counties where it currently has 90-95% of easements secured. 

“If we have the ability to move off someone’s ground that does not want the project, currently, the only way to deal with that is restarting,” Ketzner said. “So we think what you’re suggesting makes a lot of sense.” 

Sen. Matt Blake, D-Urbandale, said he signed off on the bill in subcommittee because it was the “last train out of the station” on the private property rights issue, but he urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment, which he called a “tremendous change to the system.” 

Sen. Tony Bisignano, D-Des Moines, said he opposed the amendment because of its rushed nature, and because he felt it was not “solving property rights.”

“We haven’t had a time to talk with people, to step back and really look at it,” Bisignano said of the amendment. “These people deserve the debate on eminent domain and property rights. This is a consolation.”

He voted in favor of the amendment to “keep it alive” for floor debate, which he has pushed for earlier in the session via a failed amendment to chamber rules.

The committee voted to adopt the amendment.

“This amendment builds on the work that was found in House File 639, retaining some, adding a lot, but ultimately is a major, major addition to strengthening and protecting private property rights in Iowa,” Bousselot said.

The bill advanced to the Senate floor via a voice vote in favor. Bousselot said he intends to file an additional amendment on the floor dealing with communications.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: [email protected]. Follow Iowa Capital Dispatch on Facebook and Twitter.