Helena Hayes: Capitol Update July 1, 2024
June was a busy month!
I know you all would agree with me that the spring months flew by and here we are…already waiting to celebrate our country’s independence! Since my last newsletter, many significant events have occurred that I am highlighting in this newsletter. As always, I like to be thorough in these updates so if you are short of time, at least scroll down and focus on topics that interest you.
With the primary election now in the past, all eyes were recently on the presidential debate. I enjoyed attending a watch party and want to say thanks to the Jefferson County Republicans for hosting! The event was complete with food, great conversation and smiling faces. Well done Jefferson County Republicans! As you can see in the photo above, the event was attended by young and old alike.
Iowa Supreme Court Uphold Life
Iowa is making national headlines for many reasons this month…one being last Fridays Iowa Supreme Court decision to uphold LIFE. The ruling dissolved the temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the 2023 fetal heartbeat statute which was passed last year during a special session called by Govenor Reynolds. The case is now remanded to the district court for a full hearing, but this decision provides guidance to the lower court on the standard of review in Iowa for abortion restrictions. Most importantly, while Polk County District Court moves forward with the case, the fetal heartbeat law will be in effect within the next three weeks.
The majority opinion, written by Justice McDermott and joined by Justices Oxley, McDonald and May, found that the right to an abortion is not a fundamental right under the due process clause of Iowa’s Constitution, and therefore a rational basis review is the appropriate standard of review by the courts. The majority concluded that the fetal heartbeat statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting unborn life.
Justice Christensen, Mansfield and Waterman each wrote a dissent. Christensen’s focused on the impact to women’s equality. She stated, “It is not whether abortion, with the polarizing reactions it evokes, is a fundamental right, but rather whether individuals have the fundamental right to make medical decisions affecting their health and bodily integrity in partnership with their healthcare provider free from government interference.” Justice Christensen also states “In my opinion, the only female lives that this statute treats with any meaningful regard and dignity are the unborn lives of female fetuses. After that, this statute forces pregnant women (and young girls) to endure and suffer through life-altering health complications that range from severe sepsis requiring limb amputation to a hysterectomy so long as those women are not at death’s door. All in the name of promoting unborn life – or, more accurately, birth.”
I would like to emphasize here that Christensen’s comments are a clear misinterpretation of the statute; impairment of a bodily function is clearly an exception to the law.
Please be aware that the case is not over but will advance without the injunction in place. Lastly, I want to emphasize that I am greatly pleased that our judicial system agreed with a very basic foundational truth to our humanity: life is valuable and should be protected. I have a favorite t-shirt that I have been wearing lately that reads:
“Be pro-life. Like your mom.”
Thank you to all the prayer warriors, individuals and organizations that fight so diligently for those who cannot fight for themselves!
Read the full Supreme Court decision for yourself here.
IUB Grants Permit for Carbon Pipeline
This week, the Iowa Utilities Board approved the permit for Summit Carbon Solutions to build a 688-mile liquefied carbon dioxide pipeline through 29 Iowa counties. The 507 page decision can be found here. The decision goes through each section of Iowa Code 479B, which sets out the requirements for the IUB to issue a permit for an interstate hazardous liquid pipeline.
Areas of interest in the opinion include:
Other State Agency Approval – Page 65 and page 477 outline the requirements for Summit to receive agency approval in North Dakota and South Dakota, as well as approval from Minnesota and Nebraska for specific sections of the pipeline, prior to beginning construction in Iowa.
Insurance Coverage – Pages 73-75 discuss IUB’s decision to require Summit to have at least a $100 million insurance policy to cover all damages related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the pipeline.
Land Restoration – Pages 94-99 outline the requirements IUB will impose over Summit for the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan.
Public Convenience and Necessity – Pages 103-248 discuss the requirements of Iowa Code 479B.9 which states, “a permit shall not be granted to a pipeline company unless the board determines that the proposed services will promote the public convenience and necessity.” The IUB utilized a balancing test to determine whether public convenience and necessity are met.
Factors the IUB weighed in favor of approving the Summit pipeline were:
Federal Tax Credits: “The fact that the federal government is incentivizing this technology, similar to the governmental incentivization of wind, solar, and ethanol, does weigh into the Board’s balancing as to whether Summit Carbon’s proposed project will provide a service that will promote the public convenience and necessity.” The Board also notes that these incentives have existed through 4 different presidents and been expanded by the last two (Trump and Biden).
Low Carbon Fuel Markets: “The growing number of states that require or are looking at
requiring low carbon fuel demonstrates a need for Summit Carbon’s proposed project in order for ethanol plants to remain competitive.
Climate Change:
“After reviewing the evidence, the Board finds the factor of climate change is one that
will be weighed as part of the Board’s overall conclusion as to whether Summit Carbon
should be granted a permit. While there is no official policy for the state of Iowa as it
relates to climate change, there is a state policy ‘to reduce atmospheric contamination
of this state’s environment form the combustion of fossil fuels.’ Iowa Code
159A.1(2). Furthermore, there is a greater acceptance and understanding of the
impacts anthropogenic carbon dioxide has on the Earth’s climate.”
The Board further stated: “When it comes to climate change, the Board concludes there are sufficient indicators from governments, industries, and consumers that this important issue is unlikely to go away in the near future. While Summit Carbon was cautious to not affirmatively state its proposed project will provide a climate benefit, the Board views the anticipated outcomes of Summit Carbon’s proposed project speak for themselves. Summit Carbon is proposing to initially prevent 9.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year from being released into the atmosphere, and eventually increasing to a maximum of 18 million metric tons per year. This is anthropogenic carbon dioxide that occurs outside the natural carbon dioxide cycle. This is the type of carbon dioxide emissions that governments, industries, and consumers are seeking to limit. Summit Carbon’s proposed project would provide this benefit to the public by preventing the release of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.”
Ethanol: “This benefit is to not only the 12 participating ethanol plants and Summit Carbon, but the 44,0000 Iowans employed by the ethanol industry and the hundreds of thousands of Iowans who work in the agricultural field.” The opinion notes many times that 53% of Iowa’s corn crop is used for ethanol production.
Economic Impact: The IUB finds there will be a net positive benefit to Iowans. “Summit
Carbon is estimating $1.9 billion will be spent in Iowa during construction, and each impacted county could receive approximately $1 million per year in additional revenue.”
The IUB found that the factors that weighed against granting the pipeline (impact to landowners and safety) are mitigated by requirements the IUB has imposed on Summit. See pages 242-248.
What does this order mean for Iowans who did not want the Summit pipeline on their land?
The Iowa Utilities Board has granted Summit the right of eminent domain to build their pipeline. As of now, 25% of the land being used for the pipeline will be taken by eminent domain. This means that even if a landowner is opposed to having the pipeline on their land, Summit can move forward with the next steps towards the taking of the land. If an
agreement cannot be reached between Summit and the landowner for fair compensation, the issue is then taken to the county compensation commission to determine the value of the land being taken.
How soon will Summit start building on the land?
It’s not clear when Summit will actually have full approval to build. The IUB set conditions including that Summit get approval in North and South Dakota to ensure the pipeline in Iowa isn’t a pipeline to nowhere. Summit claims they plan to begin building in 2025, but with outstanding approvals and appeals, that date is doubtful.
Following this decision there will likely be a multi-year legal battle. Parties to the case have 20 days to request a rehearing of the IUB. The IUB then has 30 days to decide on whether to grant the rehearing. Following the IUB’s decision on rehearing, the parties have 30 days to appeal to district court. Past decisions have taken up to three years to
have a final decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court.
PLEASE NOTE:
Below you will find my public statement I released following the IUB announcement:
“I am greatly disappointed to hear that the Iowa Utilities Board has granted the use of eminent domain to a private company for its personal and private profits. In granting Summit a permit to build 668 miles of hazardous carbon pipeline through 29 Iowa counties, the IUB has authorized Summit strong-arm access to approximately 450 landowners for the company’s private gain. The three-member board has glaringly ignored private property rights, community safety, constitutional protections and the entire foundational lie that the carbon sequestering industry is built upon: climate change and the false narrative that humans must take drastic action to reduce their carbon footprint to save the world. Notably, the Iowa Senate has played its role in neglecting their obligations to protect Iowans from eminent domain abuse by not taking up the two important bills from this past General Assembly. As part of the leadership team with Republican Legislative Interveners for Justice, I will continue to work to protect Iowans against this unconstitutional land grab.”
Northwest Iowa and Flood Relief
Our hearts break for the residents of Northwest Iowa and the many communities beginning the slow and difficult flood recovery. My husband’s family knew that experience all too well after being flooded out by the Des Moines River in 1993, 2008 and then for a final time in 2011. Their home was always salvageable, but the cleanup and repairs were long, costly and arduous. Thankfully, the journey was aided by volunteers and assistance from public and private entities. Like then, the Department of Homeland Security & Emergency Management Services has put together a list of the federal disaster assistance programs available to Iowans who are in the 2024 federally-declared disaster areas. If you know anyone in a county that has been affected, please be sure they are aware of the help that is available. If you are considering volunteering in some capacity, there will be amble opportunity for months to come. Find detailed assistance programs and sign up to volunteer here.
Keokuk County Veterans Affairs
During this year’s annual open house, I learned that great things are happening for the Veterans in Keokuk County. Under the servant leadership of VA Administrator Michelle Herman, veterans are able to access and navigate the many services available to them. However, there are many vets that live in Keokuk County who do not access or know about what is available. If you know a veteran anywhere in Iowa who is not utilizing their local VA office, please reach out to Michelle and she will gladly help! Contact her at this link.
You Should Know about Ombudsman
I often receive requests for help in matters of local government and one of the frequent offices I recommend is the Iowa Office of Ombudsman. As a Legislative Branch agency, the Ombudsman office has the jurisdiction to investigate or informally address most complaints against Executive Branch agencies and local governments. Their mission is to “consider complaints against governmental agencies with an eye toward improving government services.” Sometimes there is confusion about the role of the Ombudsman office regarding what they can and cannot do. In the most recent report, which is sent regularly to all legislators, the office clarified their role with the graphic below. If you think you have a concern and would like to see if the Ombudsman can be of assistance, contact them at 515-281-3592 or visit their website here.
Bills on Local Government – Effective July 1
The Local Government Committee reported 7 pieces of legislation that have been signed into law by the Governor following the 2024 legislative session. Of those bills, six are now in effect:
.
HF 2269 – Assessor Salaries for Partial Terms
Allows the Conference Boards to determine the appropriate salary for a newly appointed assessor when filling a vacancy instead of automatically paying the newly appointed assessor the salary of their predecessor.
HF 2264 – Public Funds to Religious Groups for Public Benefit
Allows counties or townships to appropriate or loan public funds to religious groups to fund or support programs that would benefit the public such as food banks or homeless shelters. The religious groups are not allowed to require any religious services, participation, or education in order for a person to receive the benefit of the program.
HF 2398 – Bonds and Insurance Policies for Public Officers
Addresses the requirement of public officials to obtain a bond to be allowed to obtain an insurance policy of the same value and requirements as required by code. Amends code to provide a public official not in compliance time to rectify the requirement without immediately being removed from office.
SF 455 – Stormwater and Topsoil Regulation
Would only allow counties/cities to impose a storm water runoff requirement that is more restrictive if the county/city pays for all study and design costs, half of any costs of installation of equipment or practices required by the policy, fair market value of any private land used/taken, and the owner of the property and the county/city agree to the requirement. The costs are required to be paid by the general fund of the county/city and prohibits imposing a special assessment to pay the costs of the requirement stricter than state or federal law.
SF 2205 – Streamlining Hiring of Civil Service Employees
Would allow peace officers who have already passed a civil service examination to bypass the requirement to retake the test when taking a different law enforcement position with a different city. Allows a city to suspend the requirement for examination for up to one year if necessary.
HF 2388 – Prohibition of Building Material Restrictions
Would prohibit cities and counties from adopting or enforcing restrictions on the exterior building material of residential buildings that are more strict than the state building code. Exceptions to the limitation include historical buildings and districts as well as common interest communities.
New Special Minor’s Driving License
With the creation of a new Special Minor’s Restricted Driver’s License, questions have come up as to what can and cannot be done under the new license. Here are two questions answered:
A provision of the law is that a minor licensee can have up to three residences from which they can drive. This was created to account for joint custody situations and other instances where the limits under the current law do not address. It was asked what happens when a minor spends their summer at a farm with a parent.
Can the minor use the restricted driver’s license to drive to do farm work while at that residence?
The Department of Transportation says they can. The restricted license allows a minor living or working on a farm to drive up to 25 miles from their residence to do farm work. This would apply to the situation above as long as the minor’s summer residence is one of the three residences they have listed.
What is considered to be an “extracurricular activity” that a minor can drive to with the new special minor’s restricted license?
Some parents have asked if non-school sanctioned teams like club volleyball, and USSSA baseball teams are considered to be an “extracurricular activity”.
The Department says no.
According to the DOT, an extracurricular activity must be affiliated with the school that the minor attends. They point to language in the bill, which requires a minor seeking the new license to have certification from their school that the minor is enrolled for courses of instruction or extracurricular activities before they can get the license. The Department has interpreted this to mean the extracurricular activity must be offered by the school for the minor to be allowed to use their license to drive to it.
For more specific information on the Special Minors Restricted License, visit the DOT website here.
Cancer Rates Across the State
A resident in Jefferson County recently pointed out to me two fascinating points released by the Iowa Cancer Registry:
#1 – Of all 50 states, Iowa has the second highest cancer rate.
#2 – Of all 99 Iowa counties, Jefferson County (Fairfield area) has the lowest cancer rate. Not only that, but it also has a lowest cancer rate than the lowest of all 50 state rates. That is an impressive feat for one of my three counties I represent!
I suppose volumes could be written regarding potential reasons for both points, but I can’t help but be reminded of the “pesticide bill” that the Senate passed in March and sent over to us in the House where it died an appropriate death. The bill was a “tort” bill that would limit civil liability for chemical companies that manufacture pesticides. Simply put, the bill stated that if a label on a pesticide product satisfied the criteria, the manufacture would not have any additional obligation under state law to provide further health or safety warnings, including the duty to warn of other foreseeable dangers.
I have heard some senators claim that there is absolutely no link between pesticides and common Iowa health diagnosis such as Parkinsons and cancer but when we face data from sources like this, it’s only fair that we should keep all possibilities on the table as we seek solutions to protecting our health.
Please take a look at more information on this topic here and here.
Honoring my Graduate: William
Our youngest child graduated this May as a dual student; 12 years as a homeschooler along with three years enrolled as a student with Indian Hills Community College. Between him and my daughter, one of them is always gracious enough to proof-read and edit everything I produce. Thank you, Molly and William! To mark this special occasion, William ran the Dam to DSM half marathon with me for the first time. We also made this summer memorable with a travel abroad trip. Congrats William! It has been an honor to go from “mommy, mama, mother and now, bro.”
