An Iowa House subcommittee has advanced legislation that would expand landowners’ ability to seek compensation for damages tied to pipeline construction, including long-term crop yield losses and soil impacts.
The proposal, House Study Bill 691, would allow landowners to renegotiate prior damage settlements and file complaints directly with the Iowa Utilities Commission or in court if they believe compensation was insufficient.
Rep. David Young, a Republican from Van Meter, sponsored the bill and said it centers on basic stewardship principles.
“It was really about ‘the premise of you want to leave what you found … in the same condition if not better.’”
Young emphasized that HSB 691 is not tied to any specific pipeline project but would create “predictability” and “consistency” in standards designed to protect landowners.
Under current law, county supervisors can file complaints related to pipeline damage. The new bill would allow landowners themselves to bring complaints directly before regulators or pursue claims in small claims or district court for “violations of damage payment provisions.”
The legislation would also permit landowners to renegotiate compensation agreements with pipeline companies — even if damages were apparent at the time of the original settlement or if more than five years have passed.
Supporters argue that the five-year limitation has left some farmers dealing with ongoing impacts without recourse.
Doug Struyk, representing the Iowa Soybean Association, told lawmakers that some members are still facing reduced yields from pipeline projects constructed nearly a decade ago.
“We believe provisions in the bill provide a floor for landowners so that they have some baseline protections to negotiate from,” Struyk said.
The bill specifies that compensation could include damages for lost or reduced yield, soil compaction, harm to irrigation systems, and impacts to soil or water conservation structures.
Kevin Kuhle, speaking for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, said the proposal reflects policy positions adopted by the organization in 2022.
“It may be stated that this bill is not necessary because pipeline companies are already doing these things in private negotiations, but there are examples out there in the state where those agreements have not been enough to protect those farmers,” Kuhle said.
“This Iowa code should provide better protection for those farmers, giving them a chance to recoup those continued yield losses and protect their conservation structures when pipelines are being built,” he added.
Agricultural commodity groups including the Iowa Corn Growers Association and Iowa Cattlemen’s Association also registered support. Summit Carbon Solutions — which is seeking approval for a multistate carbon sequestration pipeline — and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association were likewise listed in favor.
“It’s about time we tied this up and put this into code,” Young said.
Not all stakeholders support the bill as written.
Onnalee Gettler, a lobbyist for MidAmerican Energy Company, opposed the proposal but offered amendments intended to clarify certain provisions.
Gettler warned that allowing renegotiation beyond five years could effectively reopen claims indefinitely.
She said the bill’s language might allow landowners to reopen damage claims “in perpetuity,” and that MidAmerican would prefer revisions to limit long-term liability exposure.
Her proposed amendment would also clarify compensation rules between landowners and farm tenants to prevent double payment for the same parcel.
Gettler said the company would support the bill if the amendment were adopted.
Rep. Charley Thomson, who chaired the subcommittee, said he intends to take a “closer look” at concerns raised by MidAmerican.
The Iowa Utility Association, American Petroleum Institute and Black Hills Energy also registered opposition but did not testify during the hearing.
The bill is the latest development in Iowa’s broader debate over pipeline construction, landowner rights and eminent domain authority.
In recent legislative sessions, lawmakers have considered proposals to restrict eminent domain powers for carbon pipelines. A related bill passed the House in 2023 but stalled in the Senate.
As carbon capture and sequestration projects continue to move through regulatory processes, tensions remain between agricultural landowners concerned about long-term soil health and energy companies pursuing large-scale infrastructure projects.
.jpg)
Supporters of HSB 691 say the measure does not block pipelines but strengthens protections for farmers whose land is disturbed during construction.
Opponents caution that expanded liability and prolonged claims processes could increase project costs and complicate infrastructure development.
The bill now advances to the House Commerce Committee, where lawmakers are expected to further debate amendments and potential revisions.
If enacted, the legislation would significantly reshape how Iowa landowners seek compensation for pipeline-related damage — potentially setting a new statewide standard for accountability and agricultural protection.
Originally reported by Cami Koons in Iowa Capital Dispatch.
.png)
