N※N

Iowa House Debates Carbon Capture Pipeline Land Rights

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2026/02/1 .. debates-carbon-capture-pipeline-land-rights.html
  Published in House and Home on Monday, February 16th 2026 at 19:10 GMT by The Gazette
      Locales: Iowa, UNITED STATES

DES MOINES, Iowa - February 17th, 2026 - A contentious debate is unfolding in the Iowa House regarding the future of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects within the state, specifically centering on the use of eminent domain to secure land for pipeline construction. House Bill 890, sponsored by Representative Rick Halvorsen (R-Danville), proposes a significant restriction: a prohibition on utilizing eminent domain for the acquisition of easements necessary for carbon pipelines.

This bill arrives amid a surge of proposals for large-scale carbon dioxide transport networks aiming to connect industrial carbon sources - primarily ethanol plants and agricultural processing facilities - with geological storage sites, often located in states like North Dakota or Illinois. Companies like Summit Carbon Solutions are at the forefront of these projects, envisioning a network capable of capturing millions of tons of CO2 annually. However, the projects have met with growing resistance from landowners who fear the infringement on their property rights and potential environmental consequences.

Rep. Halvorsen, speaking to reporters yesterday, emphasized the core principle driving the legislation. "This isn't about being anti-carbon capture. It's about protecting landowners' fundamental rights," he stated. "Iowa has a strong tradition of private property ownership. Landowners deserve to have a say in what happens on their land, and they should not be forced to allow a pipeline across their property against their will. We aim to ensure any pipeline construction is based on voluntary agreements."

The use of eminent domain - the government's power to take private property for public use, even against the owner's wishes, provided just compensation is paid - is the central sticking point. Pipeline companies often argue that CCS projects qualify as "public use" due to their potential contribution to climate change mitigation, justifying the use of eminent domain to overcome reluctant landowners. Opponents, however, contend that the primarily private benefit accruing to corporations does not meet the threshold for public use, and that the potential disruptions to farmland and the risk of pipeline leaks outweigh any environmental benefits.

Harold Homann, a landowner in central Iowa and a prominent member of the "Protect Our Iowa Farmland" coalition, articulated the concerns of many rural residents. "The public deserves transparency," Homann explained. "We need a full assessment of the true necessity of these pipelines. Are they truly essential for reducing carbon emissions, or are they simply a way for corporations to profit while imposing risks on Iowa's landowners and agricultural resources? The potential impact on tile drainage systems, soil health, and long-term agricultural productivity is significant and needs to be thoroughly evaluated."

The proposed bill isn't without its detractors. Liz Dietz, a spokesperson for Summit Carbon Solutions, defended the projects as "vital for reducing carbon emissions, bolstering Iowa's agricultural economy, and creating good-paying jobs." She further warned that a prohibition on eminent domain could significantly hinder the development of CCS infrastructure, potentially jeopardizing Iowa's ability to participate in the growing carbon capture market. "Voluntary easements are the preferred approach, of course," Dietz conceded, "but in some cases, achieving the necessary network connectivity requires the responsible use of eminent domain. This bill would effectively kill these projects."

The debate highlights a broader tension between the urgent need to address climate change and the protection of private property rights. Similar legislative battles are playing out in states across the Midwest, where carbon pipeline proposals are gaining momentum. Experts predict that the outcome in Iowa could set a precedent for other states grappling with the same issues.

Furthermore, the long-term viability of CCS technology itself is under scrutiny. Critics point to the high costs associated with capture, transport, and storage, as well as questions about the permanence of CO2 storage and the potential for leaks. The economic incentives currently driving CCS projects are largely dependent on federal tax credits, raising concerns about the sustainability of the industry without continued government support. The debate is becoming increasingly complex, extending beyond land rights to include economic, environmental, and technological considerations. The Iowa House is expected to hold further hearings on HB 890 in the coming weeks, with amendments anticipated before a final vote is scheduled.