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.
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.
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.
Following Gov. Kim Reynolds' veto of a bill that would have restricted companies from using eminent domain projects unless they qualify as a “common carrier,” Iowans on opposite sides of this move are speaking out.
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."
Some landowners like Webb disagree and say this move by the Governor sets a different precedent.
“We’re not safe. The next company that comes in with some kind of economic development—which stands for eminent domain also—they’ll get it,” said Webb. “They’ll get it because a precedent has already been set.”
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.”
vlog did reach out to Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, but has not yet heard back.
Whether for or against this bill, people vlog spoke with believe discussions and legislation regarding eminent domain are not over.
“We’ll be back next January, working on either this one or something similar to this one,” said Webb. “But definitely no eminent domain for CO2 pipelines.”
“We’re happy to sit down with legislators that are opposed to these projects,” said Hohnstein. “We’ve been trying to talk with many of them over the last three-plus years on figuring out—how do we figure out a way to have a middle ground approach?”
Iowa legislators have shared their reaction to Governor Reynolds vetoing the bill. Their statements can be found here.
»
» Download the free vlog app to get updates on the go: |