Iowa Senate subcommittee members adopted a major amendment to House File 639 on April 2, 2025, and advanced the pipeline bill to the Senate floor. The proposal would have changed parts of the House-passed bill, including pipeline damage payments and the ability to seek voluntary easements outside a proposed route. HF 639 later passed the Senate but was vetoed by Gov. Kim Reynolds on June 11, 2025. It did not become law.
What happened on April 2, 2025?
A Senate subcommittee adopted Sen. Mike Bousselot’s proposed amendment to HF 639 and advanced the bill to the full Senate by voice vote. “Survives funnel” described that intermediate legislative step; it did not mean the amendment or bill had become law. The committee proposal also was not the final version considered by the Senate.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
J. J. Keller 2024 OSHA Construction Safety Handbook, English | $15.44 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
BookFactory Construction Daily Activity Log Book, Wire-O, 100 Pages | $19.99 | Buy on Amazon |
The bill addressed the Iowa Utilities Commission and eminent domain, the government-authorized acquisition of private property for qualifying public uses. The dispute centered in part on what protections landowners should receive when a hazardous-liquid pipeline project seeks a permit and, potentially, eminent-domain authority.
How the amendment differed from the House-passed bill
The House-passed version of HF 639 included changes to insurance, pipeline eligibility and commission proceedings. Bousselot’s committee amendment proposed removing several of those provisions while adding or adjusting others.
#1 Best Overall
- 2024 OSHA Construction Safety Book is the seventh edition with the new OSHA HazCom final rule on 5/20/24. While the rule takes effect 7/19/24, the compliance dates don’t begin until 1/19/26 per 29 CFR 1910.1200(j).
- Construction Site Book offers quick access to essential OSHA regulations, jobsite hazards, and practical safety tips. It also helps employees identify hazards and prevent injuries and illnesses.
- Features easy-to-read format, full-color images, chapter quizzes with answer key, and comes in a compact size making it a convenient reference for employees.
- Critical topics include Confined Space Entry; Cranes & Derricks; Electrical Safety; Emergency Response; Ergonomics & Back Safety; Excavations; Fall Protection; First Aid & Bloodborne Pathogens; HazCom; Health & Wellness; Jobsite Exposures; Lockout/Tagout; Ladders & Stairways; Materials Handling/Storage; Motor Vehicles; PPE; Scaffolds; Site Safety & Security; Slips, Trips & Falls; Tool Safety; Welding, Cutting & Brazing; and Work Zone Safety.
- Specifications: 5 1/4” x 7 1/4", English, Soft bound. 7th Edition. Copyright 2024.
| Issue | House-passed HF 639 | April 2 committee amendment proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Insurance and land damage | Would have increased hazardous-liquid pipeline insurance requirements to cover property damage and premium increases. | Would have adjusted insurance requirements and added lifetime repair and replacement costs for drainage tile, crop loss and soil degradation. |
| Common-carrier definition | Would have required “clear and convincing evidence” that a pipeline transported a commodity to qualify as a common carrier. | Proposed removing the House bill’s common-carrier definition. |
| Permit term | Would have limited a hazardous-liquid pipeline permit to one 25-year term. | Proposed removing the permit-term limit. |
| Commission proceedings | Would have required a commissioner to attend proceedings, allowed interested parties—including legislators—to intervene, and restricted the commission’s ability to sanction intervenors. | Proposed removing several intervenor provisions while retaining commissioner attendance at informational meetings and hearings. |
| Route and easements | The House-passed bill did not include the committee proposal’s corridor flexibility. | Would have allowed a project seeking eminent-domain approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission to pursue voluntary easements outside its original project corridor. |
| Decision timing and responsibility for damage | Not stated in the cited account as a distinct House-passed provision. | Would have set a one-year deadline for the commission to decide projects seeking eminent-domain rights and retained operator responsibility for project-caused damages. |
| Landowner representation | Not stated in the cited account as a distinct House-passed provision. | Would have allowed a landowner to request a new land representative. |
The committee amendment’s corridor provision was a proposal to give pipeline projects another route to seek voluntary agreements; it was not a blanket authorization to take land outside a route. The terms described here are from the April 2 proposal, not a statement of current Iowa law. See the Iowa Capital Dispatch account of the committee action.
Why the corridor change drew support and criticism
Bousselot, a Republican from Ankeny, presented the amendment as a way to strengthen property protections and give projects a way to secure voluntary easements rather than pursue eminent domain. He said: “This amendment builds on the work that was found in House File 639, retaining some, adding a lot, but ultimately is a major, major addition to strengthening and protecting private property rights in Iowa.”
Jake Highfill, speaking for the American Petroleum Institute, supported the corridor change and called it “common practice” among the organization’s members in other states. Jake Ketzner, a Summit Carbon Solutions lobbyist, said his company had suggested a similar change. Ketzner said Summit had secured 90–95% of easements in some counties where the proposal might provide a way forward. That was his claim about certain counties, not an independently verified statewide figure.
Ketzner argued that moving a route away from a landowner who did not want the project could avoid restarting the process: “If we have the ability to move off someone’s ground that does not want the project, currently, the only way to deal with that is restarting,” he said. “So we think what you’re suggesting makes a lot of sense.”
Rank #2
- Made in USA - Proudly produced in Ohio by a Veteran-owned business
- Wire-O book with trans lux cover with block artwork with the title CONSTRUCTION LOG
- DURABLE TRANSLUX COVER GREAT FOR TRAVEL: Our unique cover is a semi-rigid transparent cover that leads to a sturdy book that resists stains and wrinkles. Regardless of your field of expertise, this is sturdy enough to travel and won’t rip or tear.
- Date, Contractor, Weather, Work Log, Progress Updates, Rentals, Purchases, Supervisor Signatures
- Work Force tracking for: Superintendent, Brick Layers, Electricians, Plumbers, Engineers, Masons, Clerks, Truck Drivers, Pipe Fitters, Carpenters, Iron Workers, Laborers, Sheet Metal and Other. Reorder SKU: LOG-100-7CW-PP(ConstructionBlocks)
Democratic Sen. Matt Blake of Urbandale called the amendment a “tremendous change to the system” and urged senators to oppose it. Sen. Tony Bisignano of Des Moines objected to the speed of the process: “We haven’t had a time to talk with people, to step back and really look at it,” he said. “These people deserve the debate on eminent domain and property rights. This is a consolation.”
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happened to HF 639 after the committee vote?
The Senate considered further amendments on May 12, separate from the April 2 committee proposal. The official bill history records a point of order against amendment S-3166, a failed motion to suspend the rules, and final Senate passage of HF 639 by a 27–22 vote. Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed the bill on June 11, 2025, so HF 639 did not take effect. The Iowa Legislature’s bill history records the later Senate action and veto; the 2025 enrolled-bills record lists HF 639 as vetoed.
For the Senate floor debate and passage, see Iowa Capital Dispatch’s May 13, 2025 follow-up. The committee proposal should not be confused with the later floor amendments or treated as enacted law.
What this means for Iowa landowners
HF 639’s proposed protections and route provisions did not become law because of the veto. The April committee action alone did not alter landowners’ legal rights, and the proposal does not establish what rules apply to any particular pipeline or parcel today. A landowner facing an easement request or eminent-domain proceeding should consult current Iowa law and obtain advice specific to the project and property rather than rely on the bill’s proposed language.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
