[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6456126,"mediaKeyId","5701412-38379c9b50179a3f5268b31fbe2cfb3d","parentId",5701412,"title","Committee requests bill draft to bar eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines; keeps option for enhanced oil‑recovery projects","audioSeconds",1182,"startMs",1224050,"endMs",2406960,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5701412-38379c9b50179a3f5268b31fbe2cfb3d&start=1224&end=2406","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5701412-38379c9b50179a3f5268b31fbe2cfb3d/thumbnail_1224050.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6456126/Wyoming/Committee-requests-bill-draft-to-bar-eminent-domain-for-CO2-sequestration-pipelines-keeps-option-for-enhanced-oilrecovery-projects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6456126-4824a4488ded27d3777fe6fa35862736/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145371&Signature=Db80OlUZj8btbr8ydgkN1uyi~nL6lMAHznvdoI3J9vIK676SnUOdGkXgIH0Y3huRT-lmx9ZS9zhIQZcqclRYq-v-sgVWNemXGoVABWyr6vvn5c4fMmb12oF4A6lrjnAjSzpeoqazYSWJGlpH-E1pTdjmyqO2P4ICxZEiSGIpkWFi3Um6HwMSPFDhqWMfmi-nI5QtbEv7BAVHDywzMFcWwdttf5giI0bPLLQn6cB5bG44BrpP62wiUZwTJ6sMJ7BOE3xfYPpPRRtd4witT8XiP2m7GKhTNlTnHbSe~33NvbV~02IZACnwt3gJdQBh2lw7VFZhj~44ArDpPwklw5zedQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Wyoming Legislature","date","2025-08-29T23:21:28.84Z","article","The Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee on Aug. 29 directed the Legislative Service Office to draft legislation that would bar use of eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines and require unanimous landowner consent for any future CO2 sequestration pipeline routing, while preserving existing statutory treatment for other energy pipelines used for enhanced oil recovery.

Background and legal context

Anna Johnson of Legislative Service Office summarized Wyoming legal history on eminent domain and recent statutory changes: Wyoming’s Eminent Domain Act (1981) and subsequent amendments set out negotiation requirements, compensation standards and reclamation obligations; the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision prompted state‑level changes to strengthen negotiation, public‑use definitions and landowner protections. The Legislature has debated use of eminent domain for energy collector systems (wind/solar) and sought special requirements (for example, Senate File 181 requires agreements with 66% of affected landowners for certain collector systems). Committee members and witnesses noted that pipelines for enhanced oil recovery have existing statutory treatment but that the status of CO2 sequestration pipelines (and whether eminent domain applies) is less clear and may require judicial clarification.

Proposal discussed and rationale

Representative Johnson moved that the committee have LSO draft a bill explicitly prohibiting the use of eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines and require 100% landowner consent for placement of such pipelines; co‑Chair Winter seconded the motion. Supporters said CO2 pipelines for sequestration frequently serve private, commercial carbon‑credit ventures and should not receive eminent‑domain powers without unanimous landowner consent. Opponents (not present in the room) are likely to include some energy industry stakeholders who use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery and who may argue pipeline routing and land acquisition are necessary for broader energy projects.

Committee action and next steps

The committee voted to request the LSO draft language to bar eminent domain for CO2 sequestration and to return the draft at the next meeting. Committee members signaled an intent to preserve existing statutory pathways for other pipelines used in enhanced oil recovery but to sharply restrict use of eminent domain for pipelines intended solely for long‑term sequestration.

Context and considerations

Witnesses and lawmakers reminded the committee this is part of a larger debate over when private infrastructure projects may use eminent domain. The committee’s action does not itself change law; it directs staff to prepare draft statutory language for committee consideration. Lawmakers noted court precedent and separate statutes for electric collector systems and petroleum pipelines; sponsors said they expect significant input from energy industry stakeholders when the draft bill is circulated.

Ending

LSO will prepare a draft for the committee’s review at its next meeting that would bar eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines and require unanimous consent from affected landowners; stakeholders will have the chance to comment during the drafting stage and at the committee meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources, August 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After discussion of eminent domain and energy collector systems, the Agriculture Committee asked LSO to draft a bill that would prohibit use of eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines and require 100% consent of affected landowners; the committee agreed to draft language for committee review.","taxTitle","Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming","taxId",61176,"location","Wyoming","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6456131,"Committee asks LSO to draft law simplifying subleasing and fees for grazing on state trust lands",2037,5011110,7049095,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5701412-38379c9b50179a3f5268b31fbe2cfb3d&start=5011&end=7049","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5701412-38379c9b50179a3f5268b31fbe2cfb3d/thumbnail_5011110.jpg","/articles/6456131/Wyoming/Committee-asks-LSO-to-draft-law-simplifying-subleasing-and-fees-for-grazing-on-state-trust-lands","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6456131-27b4f92b2cdf53c6194505c3a7beb740/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145371&Signature=I0XBO1eo-3MoCD0BbeLqw904aV1gzl9dbJJ0YJev9-Ac8nlsCcIRJwXFUbt~YDxcurV1Dg5FOAsDwKqdsRXvgiy2z8JNOwGTyPqCPvivuHJZReVguVINXPOeMJf7HyyJir5JocozAUQiypnZ~dniwQUtHDSLb78ROOvxrpXQu7hBCItFHa288fS-R~IL5GY3KrQJJo3I-YS0lrIq4dkPR8NdZMik6ZOGiPxW5wUwxMGgyFyrnIaSxAlabgagD7GZ3uN9D5V-gv3TWl6rgScgoEwdVR9eQz4Tmvl1eUglB7azGCNUJ1YvYWyAoqN75cWCMgFOlQiTW66MJrURaRFlHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee asked the Legislative Service Office on Aug. 29 to draft legislation clarifying when a lessee of state trust grazing land may allow non‑owned livestock to use the lease and to authorize a fee for that privilege.

Anna Johnson of LSO introduced a bill draft (26 LSO 112) that would amend Wyoming statute 36‑5‑105(d) to treat some non‑owned‑livestock grazing as not requiring a formal sublease so long as the lessee retains management responsibility and an owner/lessee ownership test is met; the draft also authorizes a board‑set fee per non‑owned head not to exceed a capped share of the annual AUM rental rate.

Office of State Lands proposal and rationale

Stacia Berry, director of the Office of State Lands and Investments, presented a revised approach developed with industry stakeholders. The office recommended a simpler alternative to detailed sublease math: require notice to the office within 30 days of non‑owned livestock arriving, require payment of a non‑owned‑livestock fee within 30 days of removal, and allow the board of land commissioners to set the per‑head fee up to a stated cap (the committee amended that cap during discussion). The proposal would also clarify calculation of “excess rental” (the amount of any sublease above a lessee’s annual rental, which is split with the trust) and would allow common ownership of entities to be certified to the office so separate corporations owned at least 80% in common are not treated as a sublease.

Committee amendment and vote

Committee members and stakeholders debated fee levels and measurement units (AUMs versus per‑head notification). Some ranchers and trade groups argued a per‑head approach is administratively simpler for routine “tourist” or short‑term grazing arrangements; the office argued an AUM calculation is less directly observable on unfenced lands. After discussion the committee adopted an amendment limiting the board’s non‑owned‑livestock fee to not exceed 50% of the annual AUM rental rate (LSO had proposed a higher cap in the draft). Senator Crago moved and the committee voted to direct LSO to prepare the state‑lands draft for the next meeting; the motion passed.

Stakeholder views

- Jim McGagnon (Wyoming Stockgrowers Association) said the original LSO draft addressed many concerns but asked that the cap be lower than 100%, suggested the committee consider 10% to 50%, and asked for a clear definition of “head.”
- Brett Moline and Karen Clark (Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation) supported the state lands office draft subject to adjustments and recommended aligning the fee with the state’s AUM framework for administrative consistency.

Clarifying details in the draft

- Notification: lessee must file notice on a state form within 30 days of arrival of non‑owned livestock.
- Fee timing: payment of the per‑head non‑owned livestock fee is due within 30 days of removal of the non‑owned livestock.
- Common ownership exception: if entities holding the lease and owning the grazed livestock have at least 80% common ownership (certified to the office), no sublease or fee is required.
- Effective date: the draft would apply to leases entered or renewed on or after July 1, 2026 (per LSO drafting note).

Next steps

LSO was instructed to prepare a formal bill draft incorporating committee amendments and the state lands office suggested language. The committee chair and director Berry said they expected further adjustments in drafting and consultation with grazing lessees and industry groups.

Ending

The committee’s directive to LSO sets the state lands office and grazing stakeholders on a path to a clearer statutory regime for non‑owned grazing on state trust lands, with a fee cap adopted by the committee and administrative reporting requirements for lessees.","The Agriculture Committee asked the Legislative Service Office to prepare a bill to clarify when lessees may allow non‑owned livestock to graze on state trust lands and to authorize a per‑head or AUM-based non‑owned‑livestock fee; the committee amended the draft to cap the fee at 50% of the annual AUM rental rate.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6456136,"Wyoming committee hears wide-ranging debate over landowner hunting licenses; asks LSO for bill drafts",742,64520,807050,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5701412-38379c9b50179a3f5268b31fbe2cfb3d&start=64&end=807","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5701412-38379c9b50179a3f5268b31fbe2cfb3d/thumbnail_64520.jpg","/articles/6456136/Wyoming/Wyoming-committee-hears-wide-ranging-debate-over-landowner-hunting-licenses-asks-LSO-for-bill-drafts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6456136-8aff18ae856fd1efd2cc3a57dd811a4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145371&Signature=g5jeLEUu5usEgQafO~vpchN8VGt4d0dJgxehGj97nQX~X7Yo2ocdJgwbOSXBDATSrSruyESKmSaqgDpZ458tw5X5nHMw3ncsIQIBTSVrsEz9ZEXlli2D8u7Zz7d7q2mIOJmLRKeqAYTDnKE0fU4lIT13j5gb00xYCOxFBLKJ6xRS0~DlJ2SFUOYmfMLFwxvM3c2G6k2bgoXVCKHI-IPmi0cKPolShIsrDkEVAzuluNDwLvi4omHF8buRCcs5SoJBzLILWE-lXYX8cDnhUQQfM0X-K7QB3p3B1YhpzMpW4ADscY6cpydNFVGc9RIlNjBQsaGdToxMkfqIAErjmh8BVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Wyoming Game and Fish Director Angie Bruce told the Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee on Aug. 29 that the Game and Fish Commission largely backed the department’s recommendation after public comment on proposed changes to landowner hunting license rules.

Bruce said the commission implemented three main changes after a July meeting and statewide public outreach: it expanded the definition of “immediate family member” to include step-parents and step-children, clarified landowner involvement in qualifying for tags, and added a provision requiring the department to review and verify landowner license qualifications at least every five years.

The subject drew more than two hours of committee discussion and extensive public testimony. Dan Smith, the department’s chief game warden and wildlife division chief, summarized recent work: the department and commission had proposed changes such as increasing qualifying acreage thresholds and raising the animal-use-days requirement (from 2,000 to 3,000), and tightening ownership interest in an LLC to 20 percent. Smith said public feedback was overwhelmingly opposed to those specific proposals: the department received about 380 public comments (311 online) and, he said, “266 of those comments or 70% were opposed to those recommendations.” He said the commission chose not to adopt the acreage and animal-use-days changes after the public meetings.

Why this matters: landowner licenses award priority access to limited quota big-game tags to landowners who provide habitat, but commissioners, sportsmen and landowners disagree about whether the program has drifted from its original intent. Several lawmakers said the status quo risks concentrating limited quota licenses in a small number of properties and asked whether the commission or the Legislature should set limits.

What the department told the committee

Bruce and Smith recounted the Commission’s July meeting, where the department had presented a package of proposed rule changes intended to address concerns about sales of qualifying parcels and the use of small ownership interests to secure landowner licenses. Smith described the department’s outreach: eight regional public meetings, one centralized commission meeting with about 150 attendees and roughly 26 public speakers on the topic. He summarized the Commission’s final decisions: keep the 160-acre contiguous acreage requirement as written, keep animal-use days at 2,000, drop the proposed 20% ownership threshold, expand the immediate-family definition to include stepparents and stepchildren and add a five-year verification of qualifications.

Committee debate and ideas

Committee members and commissioners pressed for further changes. Senator Pearson said he was not satisfied and wanted stakeholders to continue discussion; he said transferability of landowner tags is “not off the table.” Representative Schmidt urged the committee to consider restoring elements of the program’s “original intent,” including stronger focus on working lands, because he said the program “has run its course” and faces growing pressures. Several members — including Representative Johnson, Representative Winter (co-chair), Representative Provenza and Senator McEwen — asked whether grandfathering current qualifiers, tying qualification to agricultural use on county tax rolls, or requiring a demonstrable working-lands income could address perceived abuses.

Commissioner perspective and task-force history

Game and Fish Commissioner Doug Bell (online) and others summarized a multi-year Wildlife Task Force effort and the Commission’s review. Bell said the task force and commission had spent thousands of hours studying allocation and that the “corporate loophole” (where large properties are subdivided into corporations or LLCs and small ownership stakes were used to claim licenses) had produced a few high-profile cases but was not widespread. He said landowners who provide substantial habitat often do not take agricultural income but still arguably merit recognition. The task force recommended a “cap” option — allowing the commission to limit the number of landowner licenses in a limited quota hunt area — as a flexible, area-by-area tool the commission could apply in future rulemaking.

Public testimony and stakeholder positions

Speakers illustrated the divisions among hunters, landowners and industry groups. Testimony included:
- Jim McGagnon, Wyoming Stockgrowers Association: urged careful study and said stockgrowers support options such as allowing a landowner to designate a long-term employee to use a landowner license, raising acreage thresholds for non-cultivated land, and permitting donations of licenses to 501(c)(3) organizations.
- Nephi Cole, National Shooting Sports Foundation: said the current system “works best for a few people” and called for broader legislative tools to address perceived problems rather than placing the full burden on commissioners.
- Jess Johnson, Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Katie Cheesebrow, Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation, Sabrina King, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers: urged nuance and transparency; King said members oppose monetizing tags and asked for public transparency when an area is effectively unavailable to public hunters because 100% of limited quota licenses have been claimed by landowners.
- Karen Clark and Brett Moline, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation: opposed a statutory cap and said transferable tags are a tool other Western states use; urged study of neighboring-state approaches.

Actions and next steps taken by the committee

After extended discussion the committee directed Legislative Service Office (LSO) staff to prepare formal bill drafts for its next meeting. Committee members agreed to move forward with two separate draft bills rather than one omnibus measure: (1) a narrowly focused draft to allow the Game and Fish Commission to limit the number of landowner hunting licenses in a limited-quota hunt area (a cap), and (2) a second draft that would address transferability/saleability of landowner licenses and related qualification criteria (for example, acreage thresholds, working‑lands definitions, possible point-system changes and whether transfers could be limited to viable agricultural operations). LSO staff highlighted single‑subject and constitutional considerations and recommended separate drafts; the committee agreed and voted to have the two drafts prepared.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Ask LSO to prepare a draft to allow the Game and Fish Commission to limit the number of landowner hunting licenses in any limited‑quota hunt area (cap). Outcome: motion approved by committee voice vote. (Mover: committee discussion led by Representative Johnson/LSO; committee consensus recorded.)
- Motion: Ask LSO to prepare a second draft addressing transferability/saleability of landowner hunting licenses and related qualification changes. Outcome: motion approved by committee voice vote (committee consensus to prepare separate draft rather than roll all changes into a single bill).

Context and unresolved questions

Officials stressed difficulty of enforcement in some problem scenarios — particularly proving intent when parcels are subdivided for estate planning or corporate structuring — and said any change to statutory qualification (for example, requiring a specified income from the property) would be complex. The Game and Fish Department told the committee it will continue outreach and that the Commission is open to additional proposals including grandfathering and working‑land tie‑ins, though some changes would require statute and others could be done by commission rulemaking.

What to watch next

LSO will draft the two bills for the committee’s October meeting. Lawmakers raised a variety of options to consider between now and then: reinstating county tax‑roll agricultural requirements, clearer working‑lands definitions, point‑system adjustments, donation options for licenses, and caps that can be adjusted by hunt area rather than a single statewide percentage.

Ending

The committee’s vote to request two separate bill drafts sends the dispute over landowner licenses back into formal policy work. The department and commissioners said they will continue public outreach while legislators and stakeholders attempt to produce statutory language that balances private‑land habitat incentives with fair access for public hunters.","Wyoming Game and Fish officials briefed the Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee on landowner hunting licenses, and the committee asked legislative staff to draft bills on capping landowner licenses and on transferability after extensive testimony from landowners, hunters and industry groups.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee requests bill draft to bar eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines; keeps option for enhanced oil‑recovery projects

Committee asks LSO to draft law simplifying subleasing and fees for grazing on state trust lands

Wyoming committee hears wide-ranging debate over landowner hunting licenses; asks LSO for bill drafts