Iowa Farmer Today
07-22-06
Land activists cheer override
By Gene Lucht, Iowa Farmer Today
DES MOINES --David Rydberg was just one of the many faces politicians and
farm organizations put on during the battle over eminent domain during a brief
special session of the Iowa Legislature last week.
Rydberg, a young farmer from Essex in Page County, spoke at a rally moments
before lawmakers gaveled in for a brief one-topic session.
A few hours later, after the Legislature voted to override Gov. Tom Vilsack’s veto
of a bill limiting the use of eminent domain, Rydberg was flashing a smile in the
rotunda.
“I’m very pleased,” he said. “I’m still kind of concerned about a possible court
case but this makes me feel better about our situation.”
That situation involves a lake local leaders want to build in his part of Southwest
Iowa that would end up taking part of his farm. It led him and others, such as
Madison County resident Lori Kirk, to rally for the override before the July 14
session.
“We’re here today as property owners, not radicals, but simple people,” Kirk said.
The future of the developments threatening Rydberg and Kirk are still question
marks. But, there was no question after the special session proponents of
property rights handed the governor a stinging rebuke over his veto of the
eminent-domain bill this summer.
It was the first legislative override of a governor’s veto in 43 years. It came
overwhelmingly, by votes of 90-8 in the House and 41-8 in the Senate.
“That’s significant,” Craig Lang, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation President, said of
the vote totals. “This is an issue that really unites Iowa.”
It certainly united many lawmakers.
The events leading up to the special session really began more than a year
earlier, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Connecticut case of Kelo vs. City of
New London, ruled eminent domain could in some instances be used as part of
an economic development plan.
Although that ruling did not directly change Iowa law, it shocked property-rights
activists and has led to a number of states changing their laws to address the
issue.
Iowa was one of those states, passing HF2351 by a wide margin this spring and
sending it to the governor’s desk.
Vilsack waited until nearly the last possible moment to decide whether to sign the
bill, then surprised many lawmakers and activists by vetoing it. Lawmakers
responded by voting themselves back into a special session.
Vilsack suggested several changes to the law but his suggestions were ignored
by the angry lawmakers.
“I’m very happy we got 90 votes,” said Speaker of the House Christopher Rants,
R-Sioux City. Rants and other Republican leaders in the House pushed hard for
the special session and argued strongly against making changes to the existing
bill.
“This is a dang good bill . . . people are fighting for their home, for their farm,”
shouted an emotional Sen. Bob Brunkhorst, R-Waverly, during the debate.
Some Democrats spoke just as strongly in favor of the override, including Rep.
Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines.
“This bill is about defending the little guy,” he said.
Other Democrats supported the override, although a few argued a 1998 attorney
general’s opinion said the Legislature could not override a veto after it adjourned
for the session.
“There will, I fear, likely be a lawsuit,” said Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames.
Potential legal concerns loom, notes Roger McEowen, Iowa State University
agricultural law specialist.
He said one concern is the 1998 opinion from the attorney general. But,
McEowen said a broader question is one that eventually could affect all the laws
passed in different states this year dealing with eminent domain.
That is whether the basic question is really constitutional and whether a
constitutional question must be addressed by a constitutional amendment
instead of by a statute.
The U.S. Supreme Court was not clear about that issue in its Kelo ruling,
McEowen said.
There is one separate policy issue, he added. That is whether the language
limiting use of eminent domain for lakes to drinking water requirements could hurt
efforts to build ethanol plants in some parts of the state because ethanol
production requires a great deal of water.
“It’s going to take a while” to sort through those legal items, McEowen said.
In the meantime, Rydberg and many of the other farmers and property-rights
activists will likely be very happy with the result.