Committee rejects bill that would limit eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines
October 30, 2025 | Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources, Joint & Standing, Committees, Legislative, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
CHEYENNE — The Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Committee voted down a bill to restrict eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines after several hours of testimony and debate.
LSO staff presented draft 26LSO0209, which would create new Wyoming statute 1-26-819 and require that, before an entity may exercise eminent domain to place CO2 pipelines, it must have finalized land-use and compensation agreements covering at least 66% of the land or 66% of the owners along the proposed route. The draft also included requirements for confidentiality of compensation terms supplied to courts, notice to local governments at least 30 days before condemnation, reclamation and liability clauses in easement orders, and an applicability date of July 1, 2026.
The committee heard competing testimony. Bridal Moline of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation supported the bill, saying it “kinda strikes a middle ground that you have to have 66% of the people under contract for the route before you can use eminent domain.” He and other agricultural witnesses told the committee the draft would protect private-property rights while avoiding a situation where a single landowner could block a project or a single company could force it through without broad agreement.
Industry witnesses sharply opposed the draft. Pete Obermueller, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, said pipelines and carbon-capture projects drive jobs and state revenue and argued the proposal would deter investment. “That, mister chairman, is the definition of public benefit,” Obermueller said, urging members to consider the economic consequences and the difficulty of financing long-distance pipeline projects if state law changes. Shelley Shelby of Continental Resources described CO2 infrastructure as “oil and gas” infrastructure and warned that regulatory or statutory shifts would chill projects on the cusp of development.
Members asked questions about technical and legal effects. Representative Johnson expressed a property-rights objection, saying, “once you’ve used the power [of] eminent domain to cross somebody’s land, you’ve actually stolen the land from them.” Industry witnesses responded that condemnation is rarely used in Wyoming, compensation and reclamation obligations are imposed by law and courts, and most pipeline infrastructure is buried with reclamation and liability protections in place.
The bill advanced to committee action after testimony. Representative Straka moved to move the bill; Representative Aument seconded. Representative Johnson offered an amendment to raise the landowner-consent threshold from 66% to 90; that amendment failed on a hand count. Johnson later proposed an amendment to bar use of eminent domain for pipelines whose sole purpose is permanent carbon sequestration; that amendment was discussed and then withdrawn by the sponsor.
On a roll-call vote the panel recorded five ayes, seven nays and two excused. The clerk read votes by name: in favor — Senator Pearson, Representative Banks, Representative Straub, Cochair Winter and the chairman; opposed — Senator Crago, Senator Love, Representative Davis, Representative Johnson, Representative Otman, Representative Provenza and Representative Schmidt; excused — Senator McKeown and Representative Eklund. The chair announced that the bill failed.
Committee members then moved to other business. The panel discussed a separate proposed redraft (26LSO0227) related to watershed projects and the committee’s drafting process; members agreed to have LSO prepare a draft and circulate it to legislators who want to cosponsor it. The committee adjourned shortly thereafter.
The record of the hearing and the roll-call vote are in the committee minutes.
LSO staff presented draft 26LSO0209, which would create new Wyoming statute 1-26-819 and require that, before an entity may exercise eminent domain to place CO2 pipelines, it must have finalized land-use and compensation agreements covering at least 66% of the land or 66% of the owners along the proposed route. The draft also included requirements for confidentiality of compensation terms supplied to courts, notice to local governments at least 30 days before condemnation, reclamation and liability clauses in easement orders, and an applicability date of July 1, 2026.
The committee heard competing testimony. Bridal Moline of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation supported the bill, saying it “kinda strikes a middle ground that you have to have 66% of the people under contract for the route before you can use eminent domain.” He and other agricultural witnesses told the committee the draft would protect private-property rights while avoiding a situation where a single landowner could block a project or a single company could force it through without broad agreement.
Industry witnesses sharply opposed the draft. Pete Obermueller, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, said pipelines and carbon-capture projects drive jobs and state revenue and argued the proposal would deter investment. “That, mister chairman, is the definition of public benefit,” Obermueller said, urging members to consider the economic consequences and the difficulty of financing long-distance pipeline projects if state law changes. Shelley Shelby of Continental Resources described CO2 infrastructure as “oil and gas” infrastructure and warned that regulatory or statutory shifts would chill projects on the cusp of development.
Members asked questions about technical and legal effects. Representative Johnson expressed a property-rights objection, saying, “once you’ve used the power [of] eminent domain to cross somebody’s land, you’ve actually stolen the land from them.” Industry witnesses responded that condemnation is rarely used in Wyoming, compensation and reclamation obligations are imposed by law and courts, and most pipeline infrastructure is buried with reclamation and liability protections in place.
The bill advanced to committee action after testimony. Representative Straka moved to move the bill; Representative Aument seconded. Representative Johnson offered an amendment to raise the landowner-consent threshold from 66% to 90; that amendment failed on a hand count. Johnson later proposed an amendment to bar use of eminent domain for pipelines whose sole purpose is permanent carbon sequestration; that amendment was discussed and then withdrawn by the sponsor.
On a roll-call vote the panel recorded five ayes, seven nays and two excused. The clerk read votes by name: in favor — Senator Pearson, Representative Banks, Representative Straub, Cochair Winter and the chairman; opposed — Senator Crago, Senator Love, Representative Davis, Representative Johnson, Representative Otman, Representative Provenza and Representative Schmidt; excused — Senator McKeown and Representative Eklund. The chair announced that the bill failed.
Committee members then moved to other business. The panel discussed a separate proposed redraft (26LSO0227) related to watershed projects and the committee’s drafting process; members agreed to have LSO prepare a draft and circulate it to legislators who want to cosponsor it. The committee adjourned shortly thereafter.
The record of the hearing and the roll-call vote are in the committee minutes.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting