The Agriculture, State & Public Lands & Water Resources Committee voted down a bill that would have limited use of eminent domain for carbon dioxide pipelines, rejecting LSO 26 LSO 0209 on a 5-7 roll call.

The bill, introduced to the committee as LSO 26 LSO 0209 and explained by LSO staffer Anna, would create a new Wyoming statute (proposed 1-26-819) authorizing eminent domain for CO2 pipelines only if a series of procedural and substantive conditions were met. Those conditions included negotiated land-use and compensation agreements securing either at least 66% of the area over a pipeline route or consent from at least 66% of the owners; calculation of improvements into fair market value; confidentiality of compensation terms except to the opposing party and courts; a 30-day notice to county commissioners and municipal governments before condemnation; and specific easement-renegotiation requirements. The bill included conforming amendments and an applicability clause covering condemnations after July 1, 2026, but said it would not impair existing contracts or projects that had entered local or state permitting before that date.

Why it mattered: proponents said the measure protected private property by forcing meaningful negotiation before a condemnation action; opponents said it would chill financing and delay pipeline projects important to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and other carbon uses. Committee debate and public testimony focused on whether the measure unduly constrained projects already in development, whether CO2 pipelines differ from other pipeline types, and how to balance property rights with statewide economic interests.

What the bill would have required

LSO staff summarized key provisions: a 66% threshold (either percent of land area or percent of owners) for voluntary agreements before eminent domain could be used; express inclusion of fair-market-value rules and application of existing condemnation statutes (1-26-701 through 1-26-715); limits on using existing easements to place additional pipelines unless the easement already authorized CO2 pipelines or a method for amendment; required liability and reclamation language in easement orders; and an express prohibition on using eminent domain to meet the states low-carbon energy standards (Wy. Stat. 37-18-101 and 37-18-102). The bills applicability section specified it would apply only to condemnations commenced after July 1, 2026, and not impair existing contracts or projects already in permitting.

Public comment and testimony

Speakers from agriculture, industry and business groups testified on both sides.

- "To me, what this bill does is 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," said Bridal Moline of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, who testified the language protected private property and clarified liability and contract terms.

- Jim McGavin of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association said the 66% approach "represents a good approach to the use of eminent domain where you create the right balance," while asking why carbon pipelines were singled out rather than applying the approach to pipelines generally.

- Pete Obermueller, president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, strongly opposed the bill. "That, mister chairman, is the definition of public benefit," he said, urging that oil and gas production and related CO2 transport yield significant statewide tax and economic benefits and warning the proposal could chill financing for multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar projects.

- Shelley Shelby of Continental Resources described carbon-capture projects as part of the oil and gas infrastructure and said CO2 transport and EOR projects are essential to maintaining production and jobs in Wyoming.

Committee debate and amendments

The bill was moved by Representative Straub and seconded by Representative Aument. Representative Johnson offered an amendment to raise the landowner consent threshold on page 3, line 2 from 66% to 90%; that amendment failed after a voice vote followed by a hand count. Representative Johnson later proposed an amendment to bar use of eminent domain for pipelines whose sole purpose is permanent carbon sequestration; that amendment (and a follow-up to change the bill title) was discussed, then withdrawn by the mover.

Final action and vote

The committee took a roll-call vote on the bill as presented. The tally was 5 in favor, 7 opposed and 2 excused, and the committee chair declared the bill failed. The roll call named members voting aye (Senator Pearson; Representative Banks; Representative Strauch; Co‑Chair Winter; the Committee Chairman voted aye) and members voting no (Senator Crago; Senator Love; Representative Davis; Representative Johnson; Representative Otman; Representative Provenza; Representative Schmidt). Two members were listed as excused. (The committee record contains the roll-call transcript.)

Discussion vs. decision

Committee discussion included multiple requests for clarification of cross‑referenced statutes (including whether the proposed section should explicitly override or defer to existing pipeline eminent-domain provisions), whether CO2 transport projects currently in planning would be affected, and the practical difficulty of separating pipelines used for enhanced oil recovery from those used for permanent sequestration. Several committee members emphasized constitutional and statutory boundaries for eminent domain in Wyoming.

Where it stands

LSO 26 LSO 0209 failed on the committee floor; no further committee action on this draft was recorded. The committee proceeded to other business.

Ending note

The debate highlighted a recurring legislative tension in Wyoming: balancing private-property protections against large‑scale energy infrastructure that proponents say supports statewide jobs and tax revenue. The transcript records detailed exchange between LSO, industry witnesses and committee members over statutory cross-references, thresholds for landowner agreement and financing implications.