Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eminent Domain topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears state legal background on eminent domain; energy pipeline and compensation questions raised
Summary
LSO staff summarized Wyoming eminent domain history and recent statutory changes; public commenters urged a strict public‑benefit test and stronger compensation if private projects use condemnation authority.
Cheyenne — Committee staff briefed members June 10 on the history and current contours of Wyoming's eminent domain law, and public commenters urged lawmakers to guard against private uses and to consider higher compensation when condemnations benefit private companies.
Anna Johnson of the Legislative Service Office reviewed historical authorities and statutory changes, summarizing the 1981 Wyoming Eminent Domain Act, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision (which expanded permissible public uses at the federal level), and 2008 state amendments that added good‑faith negotiation requirements, clarified public‑purpose definitions and allowed an owner to reacquire property if a condemnor does not put the land to use within a statutory period.
Johnson also told the committee the statute explicitly authorizes use of eminent domain for "electric power transmission and distribution systems" and summarized the 2015 expiration of a moratorium on using eminent domain for some wind energy collector systems. She noted the law authorizes pipelines for petroleum and other products, but said it is unsettled whether the present statute explicitly authorizes eminent-domain use for CO2 sequestration pipelines.
Public commenters urged caution. Jim McGavin of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association said the "key determining factor" for any eminent-domain action should be whether there is a significant public benefit, and he suggested adding statutory remedies if condemnation occurs after a lowball voluntary offer: a surcharge or higher compensation to the landowner if the condemnor ultimately uses eminent domain.
Committee members asked about compensation standards and about limits on private takings. The briefing did not produce committee votes; members requested more information and public input to consider whether statutory adjustments are necessary for modern energy projects and for ensuring fair compensation to landowners.
