Perspectives From Both Sides of the Aisle Continues: Second Installment Focused on Eminent Domain

DecorahNews.com is continuing its monthly "Perspectives From Both Sides of the Aisle" feature with a second installment, part of an ongoing effort to provide readers with balanced political viewpoints from Iowa's two major parties as key state and national policy debates continue to evolve. This month's topic, Eminent Domain & Property Rights, examines how Iowa should balance private property rights with the demands of economic development, infrastructure expansion, and energy projects. As with the inaugural edition, the feature includes two guest columns: one from a Democrat and one from a Republican, offering readers a broader perspective on the policy issues shaping Iowa communities. Iowa Republicans Failed to Deliver on Eminent Domain By: Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart Kim Reynolds vetoed a bipartisan eminent domain bill in 2025 after a private company tried to use eminent domain to take over private land in Iowa, leaving Republicans unable to agree on how to protect Iowa landowners from private corporations that stand to profit from the taking of private land. Republicans at the statehouse spent the 2026 legislative session divided on the issue. Despite the imminent threat and Republicans' promise to deliver some protection to landowners, no bills were moved this year. Let me be clear: Eminent domain for private gain hurts farmers and landowners and is against our democratic principles. What can eminent domain be used for? The short answer is it's complicated. Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, private property can only be taken if it serves a "public use," but what the word "use" means has been up for debate for years. Eminent domain has been a particularly hot-button issue since 2005, when a case called Kelo v. the City of New London redefined eminent domain. The case was brought before the United States Supreme Court when city planners in New London, Connecticut, tried to transfer land to the New London Development Corporation. The land would ultimately be used for a new facility for the biopharmaceutical company Pfizer. A handful of property owners refused to give up their land for the project and argued the city's actions were unconstitutional since the city sold their land to private developers rather than for "public use." The Supreme Court decided the city had the right to seize private land for an economic development plan, but it wasn't a unanimous decision. In her dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded." In the end, after the property in New London was taken from landowners and the homes were bulldozed, the project never actually became reality because the facility was never built. While eminent domain will continue to be debated at the national level, Iowa lawmakers have a chance to reform our eminent domain process to widen the corridors and change the rules around when developers can start talking to landowners so developers and landowners have more of a chance to work together. Lawmakers can also ensure that if big building projects like the pipeline, which can require 2-million man-hours or more, move forward, they are built by Iowans and come with good-paying union jobs. But, between legislators who are beholden to special interest groups and all of the infighting between members in the majority party, Republicans are clearly unable to lead on this and many other issues. Failed leadership has not only left Iowa landowners worrying about whether a private corporation could swoop in and take their land – it has left Iowa with an economy moving in the wrong direction, new cancer rates rising faster than any other state, hospitals closing, our public schools declining in national rankings, and our farmers struggling to make a profit. Iowans deserve so much better. This November, Iowans will have a chance to make their voices heard at the ballot box. If you don't like that Republicans' inability to lead has left them hamstrung and you're ready for some real change in our state, take a close look at who you have running for state house and senate in your district and think long and hard about what their leadership has done to help you and your family, friends and neighbors. Perhaps it is time to vote for someone new. This year, you will find Iowa Democrats are running candidates who actually live in the state and understand Iowans because they are land owners themselves, small business owners, teachers and parents who are just trying to make the state they live, work and are raising a family in a better place. They are ready to lead on issues that will protect property owners from corporations, bring down costs for everyone, ensure access to affordable, quality health care, and put our public schools first. Protecting Iowa Landowners is a Fundamental Conservative Principle By: Pat Grassley, Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives The very first bill passed by the Iowa House in the 2026 Legislative Session sent a clear message - private property rights must be protected from eminent domain abuse. No issue has generated more passionate feedback from my constituents than this one. The connection Iowans have to their land runs deep. For several years, the debate surrounding eminent domain and carbon capture pipelines has been at the forefront of state politics. Under my leadership, House Republicans have never wavered. We have tried various legislative avenues to protect your private property rights. This year, we got back to basics. House File 2104 explicitly stated that eminent domain cannot be used for the construction of carbon capture pipelines. Let me be clear: our position is not anti-pipeline. Property rights do work both ways and there many landowners who do want to see this pipeline built, citing the potential economic development and the expansion of the corn market that these pipelines could bring as reasons for their support. As a corn farmer myself, I understand the importance of opening new markets and supporting agricultural innovation. But, in my opinion, economic potential doesn't justify the erosion of constitutional rights. Eminent domain must be exceedingly rare, reserved strictly for the true public good. Our goal has never been to tell these companies they cannot build in Iowa, but instead to say they must negotiate fairly with landowners, rather than relying on the heavy hand of government to seize what they want. The party of big government—AKA the Democrats— talks out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. That's easy to do when you sit squarely in the minority and bear no responsibility for actual governing. Seeing how clearly Iowans value their property rights, many Democrats have suddenly latched onto our ideas. But a look at their actual track record exposes the hypocrisy. Historically, Democrats have never been the defenders of the American landowner. Where were Iowa Democrats when the Obama administration weaponized the Clean Water Act through the overreaching "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule? Democrats cheered as Washington bureaucrats tried to claim jurisdiction over simple ditches and dry creek beds on Iowa farms. When conservation regulations are used to restrict how farmers can manage their own fields, Democrats consistently side with the regulatory state over the individual. Their political philosophy is rooted in the belief that government knows how to manage your land better than you do. The fierce debates over the CO2 pipeline have taught us valuable lessons, and House Republicans applied that knowledge directly this session as we navigated the emerging hydrogen market. Under previous law, there were no landowner protections for hydrogen production. Your neighbor could drill and find hydrogen under your land and never even alert you, let alone pay you. Senate File 2490 establishes a 25% pooling standard. If your land is part of a production unit, you are legally entitled to your fair share of royalties—even if the physical well is on a neighbor's property. SF 2490 also mandates surface damage agreements, ensuring farmers have a say in where equipment goes and how their soil is protected. When the original bill arrived in the Iowa House, our caucus insisted on expanding these protections based directly on the feedback we received during the pipeline debate. We added robust amendments to ensure that once a landowner says "no," a company cannot continue to harass them. Crucially, we also guaranteed that no corporate entity can set foot on your property to survey or drill without explicit permission. I am proud to say that this legislation, reinforced by House Republicans to put landowners first, has been signed into law by Governor Reynolds. Whether dealing with established energy projects or emerging markets, so long as I am Speaker of the Iowa House, we will continue to fight for your private property rights. I look forward to working with my fellow Republicans in the Senate on this issue further.