A bill for an act relating to radon mitigation in residential buildings. (Formerly HF 82.) Effective date: 07/01/2026.
Summary
HF 2297 requires the Iowa commissioner to adopt a state building code provision mandating passive radon mitigation in new single-family and two-family residential construction. The required mitigation method must be one of the passive approaches listed in Appendix AF of the 2021 International Residential Code, and the requirement applies only to construction started after the rule is adopted.
The bill also amends the state building code statute to make radon mitigation provisions applicable statewide to all new single-family and two-family homes. In practical terms, it standardizes radon-resistant construction requirements across Iowa for newly built detached and duplex residences, rather than leaving the issue to local variation or optional building practices. The bill became law as Acts Chapter 1124, with an effective date of July 1, 2026.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to Iowa Code chapter 103A directing the commissioner to incorporate passive radon mitigation into the state building code for new single-family and two-family residential construction. It also amends the state building code applicability provisions so that radon mitigation requirements apply to all new single-family and two-family residential construction in the state. Builders, developers, and code officials will need to ensure compliance for qualifying new homes and duplexes beginning with construction commenced after adoption of the requirement.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 86-4, the Senate State Government Report 15-0, the Senate 43-0, and the House again 80-3, indicating strong consensus in favor of the measure. The voting pattern suggests lawmakers generally viewed radon mitigation as a straightforward public health and building safety improvement.
Contention
No committee transcript was provided, and the recorded votes show minimal disagreement. Any likely point of contention would have been the added construction requirement and potential compliance costs for builders or homeowners, but the near-unanimous votes suggest those concerns were not significant enough to generate sustained opposition. The bill’s focus on new construction, rather than retrofitting existing homes, may also have helped limit controversy.