The Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee agreed to have Legislative Service Office staff draft a redraft of a proposed watershed-improvement bill (26 LSO 0227) after members raised procedural and constitutional objections about taking up a broad draft without prior notice.

Committee chair introduced the item by noting that Senator Hicks earlier proposal had been withdrawn after staff raised constitutional concerns; the chair presented redraft language placed on the handout and asked whether members wanted LSO to prepare a formal bill draft to circulate for potential individual sponsorship.

Why it mattered: committee members expressed concern about committee procedures, single-subject rules and public notice. Several members argued that an omnibus, statewide approach that would require legislative approval before state-funded water projects exercise eminent domain would affect every municipal and county government in Wyoming and should not be advanced without broader notice and review.

What was proposed and the process question

LSO staff summarized the proposed redraft: language that would require state agencies or subdivisions that use state funds to construct water projects covered under Article 1, Section 32 (eminent domain) to obtain legislative approval before exercising eminent domain. Anna told the committee she would draft language and circulate it to members who indicated interest.

Procedural objections

Representative Provenza and Senator Craig objected that the draft had not gone through the usual process and that affected local governments and stakeholders were not present for comment. Representative Provenza said the committee had not taken public comment on the proposed language and cautioned that accepting a new draft could short‑circuit public input. Senator Craig suggested circulating the draft after the meeting and letting members individually decide whether to cosponsor; he recommended not moving it under the committee name without further outreach.

Committee decision and next steps

The chair asked for a show of hands from members who wanted LSO to draft the bill and circulate it for individual sponsorship. Six members raised their hands; Anna said she would draft the language and circulate it to those members for cosponsorship consideration. The committee did not adopt the redraft as a committee-sponsored bill; staff drafting and individual member sponsorship were the agreed next steps.

Ending note

Committee members emphasized process and notice: whether a bill is carried by the committee or by individual sponsors affects public engagement and constitutional considerations. The LSO drafting step means the proposal could be revised and considered later with wider opportunity for review and public comment.