Proposed eminent domain bill creates community concerns

When people sat down to the legislative luncheon Friday, March 27, at Lakeside Casino, one thing they weren’t prepared to see was a proposed bill from the legislature on eminent domain.

House Study Bill 223 was recently proposed by the committee on government oversight by Chairperson Kaufmann.

It relates to the use of eminent domain authority, modifying and establishing related procedures, including effective date and applicability provisions.

Stances?

The crowd wanted to know what stance Rep. Joel Fry, R-Osceola, and Sen. Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, would take if the bill moves forward, considering Clarke County is in the middle of a reservoir project and using the right of eminent domain to acquire property for public water usage.

Fry said his stance on the reservoir project in the legislature is the same as its been in the past five years — he will remain neutral.

“I will continue to remain neutral, given the fact that I have an interest in that situation with my house and where I live,” Fry said. “I do not know where that bill will ultimately will go because it just came out of subcommittee earlier this week, is my understanding.”

“Why do we still have people giving a hoot in the capitol about whether or not we have a reservoir or not?” asked Dr. Jim Kimball.

Fry said the state context of eminent domain has gotten much larger in discussion in the legislature.

“There’s a big difference between pipelines and water supply and electric lines,” Kimball said. “It seems to me like Mr. Kaufmann has some rather strange ideas about what we ought to do to get water here, and I would hope that somebody up there is at least giving them some good ideas about how we can have decent, solid water here. Because I would hate to have you be the one who gets blamed if we have a drought and we have to turn the tap and it’s brown water that comes in.”

Other people in the crowd were upset because they said Clarke County Reservoir Commission has followed the rules in the past 20 years to get the reservoir project going, and now this could change the rules and make the project start all over again.

A section of the proposed bill states, “this act applies to projects or condemnation proceedings pending or commenced on or after the effective date of this division of this act.”

More questioning

Helen Kimes asked Sinclair about her stance on the proposed bill. Sinclair responded she didn’t know the bill even existed until she sat down at the luncheon.

“We have been involved with it. We worked with government entities to do it the proper way,” Kimes said. “We’ve studied pipelines. We’ve studied all the different sources of obtaining water, additional water, because if we only have the existing water supply, or one comparable to the existing water supply, we cannot grow. Does this community want to grow or should we become stagnant? Most of your rural communities are dying or losing population. That’s not been the case here, and it’s been because we’ve been proactive.”

Sinclair said she believes in following procedures and the law. She also strongly believes in personal property rights, but the public good has to be heavily scrutinized when it comes to eminent domain.

However, Sinclair said she couldn’t speak to the proposed bill because she hadn’t had a chance to read it yet.

“We’ve been quoted, of course, it’s been mentioned, anyhow, in the (Des Moines) Register that our local community leaders are developing a monstrosity out here,” Kimes said. “And, that’s not what we’ve done, and that’s not what we’ve studied. And, I think the people here know this. And, it’s passed by a huge majority several different times in elections. We just need to know that we have some support, somewhere, from the people we elect.”