Protecting property rights from CO2 pipeline

The legislative session has ended, and I will be providing a recap of it in a future newsletter, but there is a critical issue that is still alive: private property rights.

This year, the House and Senate passed an important bill to protect property rights (HF 639), and we are awaiting the Governor’s signature on it. The bill restricts the use of eminent domain to build liquefied carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines.

As you probably know, this battle has been going on for a few years, but we are on the verge of finally protecting these vital constitutional rights.

I expect Gov. Reynolds to sign the bill and protect individual liberty once again, as she has done many times in the past.

How we got here

Americans have always held a deep respect for property rights.

George Washington said freedom and property rights are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other.

President William Howard Taft said next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important right guaranteed by the constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race.

But the Founders also recognized that eminent domain is necessary in rare cases if it is in the interest of the public. So they made some eminent domain constitutional. Under the Fifth Amendment, the government can take property only if it is for “public use” and only if the government pays the property owner “just compensation.”

For over 200 years, Americans generally agreed that the “public use” requirement meant that eminent domain could only be used for things like public roads, public parks, public schools, and public utilities.

Unfortunately, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Kelo that the government can seize private property and give it to a private developer in the name of “economic development.”

When Kelo was handed down, I was shocked and angry. I hope you see what a major setback this was for freedom. In allowing eminent domain for private use — rather than a public one — the Supreme Court effectively rendered the Fifth Amendment’s protection of property rights null and void.

There is no longer a meaningful limit to the use of eminent domain, because if you can argue that the public will somehow benefit from, say, a new private shopping center or a new private factory, Kelo allows the use of eminent domain.

Never mind the fact that the true beneficiaries of private projects are the private developers and their shareholders — not the public. Never mind the fact that some poor landowner has had their property seized by the government and handed over to someone with more power and more money.

(Don’t get me wrong — I am in favor of all kinds of construction and development. Just don’t use the government to take somebody’s land for your own profit.)

So with the Supreme Court opening the door to eminent domain abuse, and Congress not stepping in to protect landowners, we are left to slug it out at the state level.

The current problem

Fast forward to today. Some private companies are using the government to take private property for their own private gain. That is what has happened in the case of liquefied CO2 pipelines.

Keep in mind that I believe that many other pipelines are for “public use” and that eminent domain, if done properly, can be used to complete them. Gas and oil pipelines, for example, are legitimate utilities that provide all of us with the energy we need to heat our homes and businesses, keep the lights on and make our cars and trucks go.

Liquefied CO2 pipelines, however, do not serve a “public use,” in my opinion. I am not aware of any power plant that runs on liquefied CO2. I do not have a CO2 line running into my home, and I’ve never seen a CO2 hook-up on a car.

In fact, the plan I’ve always heard is that these pipelines will transport CO2 to areas where the liquid can be pumped underground, never to be seen again. That is the opposite of a utility.

Utilities pump things out of the ground and transport them to a site where they will be used. They do not pump things into the ground where they will never be used.

Again, I am for a vibrant, dominant transportation and energy system in the United States. It is critical to our national security and our prosperity. So as long as eminent domain is for real “public use” and a landowner is provided with just compensation, I believe it is constitutional.

But the use of eminent domain for CO2 pipelines simply does not meet those requirements. The liquefied CO2 at issue is a byproduct of private manufacturing, and its transport serves no broad public purpose.

That is why I voted for the bill.

I look forward to the Governor signing this bill and protecting the rights of landowners across Iowa.