Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pipelines Carbon Oxide topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln County adopts ordinance regulating carbon oxide pipelines, sets setbacks and fees
Summary
After public testimony and months of Planning and Zoning work, the county commission approved an ordinance that makes carbon oxide pipelines and related above‑ground facilities conditional uses, establishes setbacks, a minimum cover depth and an application fee structure.
Lincoln County commissioners voted 3-2 on April 22 to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 154 (zoning) to regulate carbon oxide pipelines and associated above‑ground facilities.
The ordinance, recommended by the county Planning Commission, revises the county's neighborhood utility facility definition to exclude carbon oxide pipelines and above‑ground carbon oxide structures and makes those uses conditional in the A-1 (Agricultural) and RC (Recreation Conservation) zoning districts. Toby Brown, representing county planning, told the commission, “what this ordinance proposes to do is to utilize the existing neighborhood utility facility definition to modify that to exclude, carbon oxide pipelines and above ground part carbon oxide structures.”
The measure drew several proponents at the public hearing, including local residents and a letter read on behalf of Representative Carla Lembs, who wrote that the ordinance "works well within Lincoln County comprehensive plan for strategic orderly development" and recommended setbacks measured to the property line, plume modeling on application, a $5 per lineal foot fee, a minimum seven‑foot cover depth and a two‑mile notification radius.
Why it matters: the ordinance changes how companies would site pipelines and above‑ground CO2 facilities in county agricultural and conservation zones. It also shifts notification costs to applicants, requires technical application materials, and creates waiver mechanics allowing landowners to agree to reduced setbacks by recorded instrument.
Key provisions described by planning staff include: a 500‑foot minimum setback for pipelines measured from property lines (waivable by affected owners), a 1,320‑foot minimum setback for above‑ground structures from dwellings, churches, schools or businesses (also waivable by instrument filed with the register of deeds), a seven‑foot minimum depth of cover for pipelines with the applicant (and successors) responsible for maintaining cover, prohibition on siting pipelines/above‑ground structures inside municipal planning jurisdictions, an application review process that may recommend larger setbacks if staff deems necessary, and a proposed application fee of $5 per linear foot of pipeline inside the county with an annual escalation commencing Jan. 1, 2026.
During the hearing Commissioner Otten opposed the ordinance on constitutional grounds, focusing on language requiring plume modeling and safety‑based regulation. He said counties are constrained by the federal preemption doctrine and that the plume‑modeling language raised legal risk: “So I'm gonna follow the constitution today and I'm gonna vote against it.” Chairman Bryant and other commissioners said the ordinance reflected years of public input and local priorities. Tony Ventura, a Fairview resident who testified in favor, urged commissioners to "pass this ordinance as is today to protect the citizens of the county."
The Planning Commission recommendation was recorded as 5-0-1. On the Board of Commissioners the final roll call on adoption was: Commissioner Arons — no; Commissioner Otten — yes; Commissioner Schmidt — yes; Commissioner Putnam — yes; Commissioner Landeen — no; tally: 3 yes, 2 no. The board adopted the ordinance.
Next steps and limits: conditional use permits under the ordinance are processed by Planning and Zoning after a public hearing; appeals to a Planning Commission decision must be filed within five days to bring the matter before the Board of Commissioners. The ordinance text references application materials such as plume modeling; commissioners noted state and federal legal constraints (preemption) and the possibility of legal challenges.
Ending: Commissioners said the measure brings local regulations in line with landowner concerns developed over more than two years of public input and Planning and Zoning review. The ordinance does not provide an ordinance number in the hearing record and certain technical items (for example the exact annual escalation rate language and the explicit "two‑mile" notification phrasing) appear in the transcript as discussed by planning staff and proponents; the adopted ordinance text should be consulted for final, enforceable language.
