Nebraska hearing on LB 916 pits private property rights against carbon-capture projects

LINCOLN, Neb. — Lawmakers, landowners, industry representatives and safety experts filled the Natural Resources Committee room in a hearing that ran for more than five hours as senators considered LB 916, a bill that would bar the use of eminent domain for private carbon dioxide pipeline projects and for underground carbon storage.

The bill’s sponsor, Glenn Meyer, told the committee LB 916 would give the Nebraska Oil and Gas Commission authority over CO2 pipeline approvals while explicitly prohibiting private companies from using eminent domain for pipeline construction or CO2 storage. Meyer said the proposal responds to landowners who have reported coercive outreach from pipeline developers; he provided the committee a 2021 letter from a company and cited polling showing strong opposition to using eminent domain for private projects.

Supporters — including multiple family farmers and conservation and farm organizations — framed the bill as a protection of generational property rights. ‘‘They are going to take my ground,’’ said Shelley Meyer of Dixon County, recounting the effect of a 2021 notice her family received from a CO2 project developer and urging senators to preserve the right of landowners to refuse an easement. Proponents repeatedly raised safety concerns, citing pipeline incidents in other states and the potential for concentrated CO2 releases to incapacitate people and animals.

Opponents argued LB 916 goes too far and would undercut Nebraska’s bioeconomy. Brent Hoops, representing a coalition of ethanol and agricultural trade groups, said the 2021 law that opened a regulated pathway for carbon capture — LB 650 — was intended to create ‘‘predictable’’ rules for sequestration and that LB 916 would make such projects difficult or impossible to permit. Industry witnesses, including the American Petroleum Institute, warned that a blanket ban on eminent domain for CO2 projects would deter private investment, cost construction and operations jobs, and shrink markets for Nebraska ethanol producers. API testimony cited an estimate of about $6.3 billion in potential private investment tied to CCUS projects in Nebraska.

Several witnesses described alternatives. Tallgrass was cited repeatedly as a firm that repurposed existing natural-gas rights-of-way and secured voluntary easements; proponents and some landowner representatives said community-benefits agreements, escrowed funds for emergency training, and route changes were workable solutions. The Nebraska Farmers Union and Sierra Club urged stronger protections on eminent domain while advocating for standards, reclamation requirements and robust oversight of underground storage.

Technical and safety questions drew detailed exchanges. Testimony from state and local first-responder trainers described extensive pipeline-monitoring systems and training programs, and University of Nebraska state geologist Matt Joekel testified in a neutral capacity that carbon sequestration can be feasible in parts of Nebraska but requires site-specific geological study, long-term oversight, and engineered safeguards. Joekel said acceptable storage generally requires depths on the order of 2,600 feet (roughly 800 meters), suitable porous reservoir rock and an effective cap rock to prevent upward migration of CO2.

A central practical dispute concerned consent thresholds for underground injection areas. Opponents from the Panhandle described a landowner-organized project with signed easements and staked injection sites they say would be blocked by any requirement that every landowner in an affected plume area consent. Mark Halstead of Kimball County told senators his region had formed a landowner group, secured leases and was ‘‘ready to go’’ but said LB 916’s proposed 100% consent requirement for injection-area owners would be unrealistic because of absentee owners, heirs with unresolved estate issues, or state school lands that may not sign.

Senators asked about specifics — whether CO2 can be safely transported in repurposed pipelines, typical pipeline pressure and diameters, and how an operator’s approach affects community reception. Proponents and opponents both cited examples from neighboring states and reiterated that much of the outcome depends on route decisions, community engagement and contractual protections such as reclamation and emergency-response funding.

The committee did not take a vote on LB 916 at the hearing. Senator Meyer closed by framing the measure as a narrow protection of private property rights and asked the committee to advance the bill. The chair later read the online record: 63 proponents and six opponents filed online comments. The committee recessed for a short break and left the bill pending further committee action.

What’s next: The Natural Resources Committee may elect to introduce amendments or hold additional technical briefings before considering advancement of LB 916 to general file.