30 GOP lawmakers join opposition to Summit carbon capture pipeline's approval in Iowa

Opponents to Summit's planned carbon-capture pipeline appear to have found unlikely allies after more than 30 Republicans legislators condemned the Iowa Utilities Board’s approval of the project, pledging to “oppose this proposal at every step.”

"Today is a dark day for anyone who owns property in Iowa. Indeed, it’s a dark day for our constitution and potentially for the Iowa way of life.  We could not be more disappointed that the Iowa Utilities Board, despite overwhelming compelling evidence to the contrary, found that the Summit carbon-dioxide pipeline scheme is somehow in the 'public interest and necessity,'" according to a press release written by Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City.

The statement called the IUB’s actions “lawfare being waged against ordinary Iowans.”

“In today’s action, the IUB departs from important constitutional norms in a way that threatens every farm, every house and every person in our state. A line has been crossed.

“We are carefully reviewing today’s decision in light of the docket, Iowa statutes, and the state and federal constitutions to develop the next steps in the courts and in the General Assembly in response to today’s developments.  Iowans can be assured this is not the final word on this issue,” according to the press release released on behalf of the 30 Republican lawmakers.

Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, also weighed in issuing his own statement.

"Iowa House Republicans believe landowner rights are one of our highest priorities. We passed two (one in the 2023 session and one in 2024) different bills that would have defended these rights as it pertains to eminent domain,” Grassley wrote, referring to bills that ultimately weren’t taken up by the Senate.

“However, the IUB has made its decision to approve Summit Carbon Solution’s pipeline project route with the stipulation that it cannot begin construction until they have received approval in North and South Dakota.

This just further confirms what we already knew — that the Legislature must conduct a comprehensive review and update the state's eminent domain laws," Grassley wrote in his statement.

Senate Republican leaders did not return phone calls Wednesday on why the bills pertaining to eminent domain were not brought up or if legislation on the issue will be considered in the next session.

Thomson, who sponsored House File 2522 in the last session, said he never received word on why the Senate did not take up the bill, which was largely supported by pipeline opponents.

HF2522 would have provided what Thomson calls “an express lane” by allowing eminent domains questions to go to district court quickly to determine if a proposed taking is lawful under the Iowa and U.S. constitutions.

“We put people in suspended animation on their land for years pending some resolution of the legality of a proposed taking,” Thomson said of current law.

Opponents to the pipeline project expressed disappointment but not surprise at the IUB’s ruling Tuesday, contending that the board was politically stacked to approve the project. Wally Taylor, attorney for the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club told the Register, “These board members were appointed by the governor specifically to approve this permit, and I expected what they would do is this."

But at a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Omaha attorney Brian Jorde, who represents several of the landowners opposing the pipeline, said the people’s frustrations should be directed more towards Iowa’s politicians than at Summit.

“Summit has the right to propose bad business plans and put them in front of the IUB. That's what the law is. But ask yourselves, who made the law and how did it get watered down and how was the red carpet rolled out? Well, that's your Iowa politicians in this case,” Jorde said.

Thomson agreed.

“We should be very angry with our government right now. The Iowa General Assembly is failing the people of Iowa,” Thomson said.

“There is a real danger to our constitutional liberties, our constitutional order, if this goes through and it's time for people to step up and let their elected representatives and senators know exactly what they think about this,” Thomson told the Register Wednesday.

Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, was one the legislators who signed on to Thomson’s press release and said eminent domain has a legitimate purpose when serving the public good. But he questions its use for Summit.

“In this case, the board said it (the pipeline proposal) is a public necessity. First off, its (Summit) is not a public entity and I would strongly oppose this idea that it is a public necessity,” Alons said Wednesday.

The next step for Summit is to secure approval in South Dakota where another potential political wrinkle could be on the horizon.

A petition has been submitted with 28,000 signatures that would have South Dakota voters decide in November whether to reject a new state law that pipeline opponents view as too favorable to pipeline companies.

The petition, which needed 17,508 signatures to be placed on the ballot, is now being assessed by officials to determine whether its signatures are valid.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: 30 GOP lawmakers join opposition to Summit carbon capture pipeline's approval in Iowa