Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain Co2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee requests bill draft to bar eminent domain for CO2 sequestration pipelines; keeps option for enhanced oil‑recovery projects
Summary
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.
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.
