ºÃÉ«tv

But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa’s powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa’s agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights.

“While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,� said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. “It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.�

Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was “committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.�

Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late.

“If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?� Kaufmann said. “She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she’s siding with special interests.�

Summit faces obstacles in several states

Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners.

Even with the relief from Reynolds’ veto, Summit will likely have to after South Dakota’s governor on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit’s permit application was also rejected in .

The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and but faces various court challenges.

The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company.

Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline.

“We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,� Summit said Wednesday. “At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America’s energy dominance for the long term.�

Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse

Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto “is a major setback for Iowa.�

The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval.

“We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,� Grassley said.

Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it.

“Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,� he said.

As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate’s Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there.

Summit's project and its critics

The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently

By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the

The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into

The pipeline’s many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches.

Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well.

A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face.

“Big money, greed & self interest won the day,� said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline’s route. “Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.�