Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Co2 Pipeline Compact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wyoming committee declines to back interstate CO2‑pipeline compact after public testimony on eminent domain, safety and water
Summary
A proposed joint resolution asking the governor to pursue an interstate compact for regional carbon‑dioxide pipeline infrastructure drew sustained public concern about eminent domain, water use and pipeline safety and failed to pass the Joint Minerals Committee.
The Wyoming Joint Minerals Committee on Tuesday considered a draft joint resolution requesting the governor to begin discussions with neighboring states and Canadian provinces about an interstate compact for carbon‑dioxide pipeline infrastructure. After public comment and debate the committee voted against the resolution in a roll‑call vote.
Why it mattered: the resolution would have directed the governor to pursue talks with North Dakota, Montana, Alberta and Saskatchewan about coordinated rules and a common regional approach to CO2 pipeline corridors and infrastructure. Proponents said standardized review and planning could simplify long cross‑border projects; opponents cited eminent‑domain and public‑safety concerns and requested more study and protections for landowners and water resources.
What the committee considered: staff introduced the draft as 26 LSO 70, draft 0.5, described in meeting materials as a “joint resolution to encourage the establishment of an interstate compact for the development of regional and international carbon dioxide pipeline infrastructure.” The draft asked the legislature to request the governor to open talks and to direct state agencies to coordinate on compact development.
Public comment and concerns: several public commenters pressed the committee to delay or reject the resolution. Jan Loftus of Buffalo told the committee and recounted material she said she had reviewed about a five‑state project and the company Summit: “There are problems for taxpayers regarding water, money, imminent domain, and potential to life,” she said, summarizing concerns raised in recent regional coverage and documentary material. Loftus cited local water use for pipeline compression stations, alleged eminent‑domain threats, and safety incidents in other states as reasons the committee should not authorize the executive branch to begin compact negotiations without further safeguards.
Rosemary Sivan reiterated landowner and aquifer concerns, and other speakers raised the potential for taxpayer funding of private pipeline construction and limits on county zoning authority. Supporters of the resolution said a compact would be a coordinating vehicle, not an immediate authorization to build pipelines or to take land; they emphasized the compact would require later legislative approval and that compacts would be implemented under statutes approved by each state’s legislature.
Committee action and outcome: following debate the committee took a roll‑call vote on the resolution; the chair announced the roll call result as failing. Committee members who spoke in favor framed the resolution as a gesture to begin formal talks with neighboring jurisdictions; others said dialogue could proceed without a formal resolution and urged further study and stronger explicit protections for property and water rights before authorizing compact talks.
Next steps: with the resolution defeated, proponents and staff suggested continuing informal outreach and suggested additional public meetings and stakeholder briefings before any formal legislative request to the governor.
Sources: LSO bill‑draft presentation (26 LSO 70, draft 0.5); public comment from Jan Loftus and Rosemary Sivan; committee roll‑call and discussion.
