Wyomings Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Committee asked Legislative Services Office on Aug. 29 to prepare legislation that would bar the use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration pipelines, while acknowledging that other kinds of energy collector systems remain regulated under a separate standard.

LSO attorney Anna Johnson opened the committees final agenda item with a legal primer on eminent domain in Wyoming. She summarized constitutional protections, the states eminent domain statute and the 2013 Barlow decision on valuation principles. She noted Senate File 181 (passed earlier) set procedural requirements for energy collector systems and a 66 percent negotiation threshold in project corridors before eminent domain can be used.

"Beginning on page 2, the bill requires entities placing energy collector systems to follow certain guidelines before using the power of eminent domain," Johnson told the committee.

Why it matters: Eminent domain allows government and some designated private entities to acquire private property for public use with just compensation. Whether a private energy or carbon company can use that power is legally and politically contested. Landowners and some lawmakers said they want stronger protection for property rights when companies propose CO2-only pipelines.

Public comment and committee action
During public comment, residents urged the committee to limit eminent domain. "Allowing it for a favorite project today means allowing it for a project that you dont like tomorrow," citizen Lois Garcia said.

Representative Anna Johnson moved that LSO draft a bill prohibiting the use of eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines and to treat CO2 sequestration differently from energy collector projects. Co-chairman Winter seconded the motion; the committee approved the request for a draft.

Divergent questions remain
Committee members and presenters highlighted unresolved questions:
- Scope: Should the prohibition apply to all CO2 pipelines or only to projects whose sole purpose is sequestration (not enhanced oil recovery)? Representative Johnson said he would propose language that bans eminent domain for pipelines built exclusively for sequestration but not affect CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery.
- Existing infrastructure: Several legislators noted thousands of miles of existing CO2 infrastructure used for enhanced oil recovery; a blanket prohibition could have broad effects on current operations.
- Legal uncertainty: LSO and members observed that whether eminent domain applies to particular CO2 projects might ultimately require resolution by the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Next steps
The committee requested LSO prepare a draft tailored to committee guidance: bar eminent domain for projects dedicated to CO2 sequestration while leaving existing and enhanced-oil-recovery pipelines under the current statutory framework for review. Members said they expect robust stakeholder engagement before any bill is introduced.