Lincoln County planning panel reopens remanded pipeline ordinances; schedules follow-up meeting

The Lincoln County Planning Commission spent its March work session reviewing five draft, remanded ordinances about carbon dioxide pipeline systems and above‑ground facilities, and directed staff to prepare a cleaned draft for a special public meeting next month.

Toby Brown, director of Lincoln County Planning and Zoning, told the panel the ordinances had been drafted in coordination with an ad hoc committee and pulled technical definitions from federal regulations, but that the planning office now recommends removing those narrow technical definitions and treating the matter in local land‑use terms. “I would recommend that we don’t have definitions for these items,” Brown said, adding that using a single local term such as “carbon dioxide pipeline” preserves flexibility in review and enforcement.

Why it matters: commissioners and dozens of residents who spoke at the hearing said any local rules must protect landowners’ future development rights, require meaningful emergency‑response planning and training for local fire and emergency services, and include a mechanism for staff to recover the extra administrative cost of pipeline reviews.

What the commission heard and asked for

Brown summarized staff’s research and the ordinance background: Lincoln County had no existing zoning rule specific to CO2 pipelines; the instructions to the planning commission came from the county board’s remand. He said staff had reviewed federal and state guidance, pipeline company filings to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and advisory guidance (the transcript cites federal regulatory definitions and national pipeline guidance).

During public comment more than a dozen residents, many rural property owners and farmers, urged protections that would preserve building eligibilities and limit siting near homes. Several cited emergency and safety concerns from past pipeline failures and urged either much larger setbacks or at minimum a property‑line standard so undeveloped parcels retain their development potential. One resident asked that plume modeling be public: “I’d like to see that retained because it does matter. And I think the public deserves to know what those plume models say,” Sarah Stever said.

Staff and legal counsel also flagged specific editing and implementation points for the commission: - Definitions: staff recommended dropping the highly technical federal definitions (for example, a formulation that required a fluid to be “more than 90% carbon dioxide molecules”) and instead using simple land‑use terms such as “carbon dioxide pipeline” and “above‑ground facility.” - Scope: staff said the pipeline operator’s PUC filings indicate a small number of above‑ground components likely in Lincoln County (the transcript records the applicant’s filing described roughly six above‑ground structures), and recommended treating above‑ground structures differently from the buried pipeline segments. - Setbacks and notice: staff noted that Lincoln County historically uses a 500‑foot notification band and that the county’s setback practice for other uses (for example, certain CAFO setbacks) is measured to dwellings; members and members of the public argued for setbacks measured from property lines to preserve undeveloped land. - Plume models and third‑party review: staff recommended requiring operators to submit the full plume modeling filed with the PUC and funding a neutral third‑party technical review paid by the applicant. - Emergency response and training: commissioners and public commenters asked that operators be required to provide ongoing training and equipment support to local fire districts and emergency management as a condition of approval. - Fees: staff recommended the commission consider a per‑line‑foot annual administrative fee to cover county review and ongoing oversight; the panel directed staff to draft fee language for follow‑up review.

Public comments and concerns

Public commenters focused on setbacks, the visibility and content of plume models, economic impacts on land values, and emergency response capacity. Multiple speakers urged a setback measured from property boundaries rather than from a home’s footprint so undeveloped acreage retains building eligibilities. Farmer Scott Montgomery cited the difference in volume and pressure for a 24‑inch CO2 line versus smaller gas mains and asked the county to factor that into setback decisions. Rodney Miles and others asked whether a single landowner’s easement or signed waiver could eliminate protections for neighbors.

Toby Brown and legal counsel said waivers recorded by property owners are not automatically overruled by changed local rules, but Brown cautioned that county authority has limits and that safety regulation is often state‑level; the commission’s role is land‑use regulation.

Commission direction and next steps

After discussion, the Planning Commission gave staff the following directions to prepare a revised draft for public review: - Remove or simplify the federal‑style, chemistry‑specific carbon dioxide definitions and use local land‑use terminology. - Treat buried pipeline segments and above‑ground structures as distinct: require individual review (conditional use or rezoning as appropriate) for above‑ground facilities (valves, pig launchers, other appurtenances) rather than rezoning an entire route corridor. - Keep a 500‑foot setback as a floor measured from property lines for affected landowners, with a mechanism for staff or the commission to increase that setback after review of plume modeling and site conditions. (Commissioners discussed larger setbacks urged by some commenters but directed staff to draft language that preserves the commission’s ability to set a greater distance where the technical record supports it.) - Require the operator to provide unredacted plume modeling filed to PUC, fund a county‑paid independent third‑party review of those models, and use the technical review to inform any site‑specific setbacks or conditions. - Add explicit conditions for emergency response: training, equipment contributions and local coordination with the county emergency manager and affected fire districts. - Draft an annual administrative fee to offset planning, review and oversight costs (staff to propose a figure and an escalation mechanism).

Staff will prepare a cleaned draft incorporating these changes and legal edits noted at the hearing and post it for a special public meeting to continue the remand review. The commission set a target for a special meeting in mid‑March to finish and formally vote on recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.

Ending

Commissioners and staff emphasized that any ordinance returned to the commissioners should be clear, implementable and available for public review before vote. “We want to make sure everybody knows what they’re voting on,” Brown said. The commission encouraged continued public engagement and scheduled a follow‑up meeting so members, staff and the public can review specific ordinance language before any formal recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.