Prohibition on eminent domain for CO2 pipelines considered

The Natural Resources Committee heard testimony Jan. 28 on a measure intended to protect the property rights of Nebraskans from companies seeking to build carbon dioxide pipelines.

LB916, introduced by Sen. Glen Meyer of Pender, would prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire a right-of-way for, construct or operate a pipeline used for transporting carbon dioxide.

Meyer said he introduced LB916 at the request of constituents who fear that carbon dioxide sequestration companies will use eminent domain to acquire their land if they refuse to grant an easement. Eminent domain should be used only rarely and exclusively for public benefit, not for private economic gain, he said.

“Today, I am asking you to place the rights of landowners over the rights of private companies, which is the way it ought to be,” Meyer said. “Let’s fix this mistake that was made in LB650.”

That measure, passed by the Legislature in 2021, created the Nebraska Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide Act, which established a legal and regulatory framework for underground carbon dioxide storage in Nebraska.

Meyer’s proposal would authorize the Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to approve an application for a carbon dioxide pipeline if the project meets safety, environmental and economic criteria.

LB916 also would update requirements the commission must meet before it approves a permit for an underground carbon dioxide storage facility. Currently, it must find that the facility’s operator has obtained the consent of those who own reservoir estates comprising at least 60% of the physical volume contained within the storage reservoir.

Under the bill, the commission could not issue a permit if an operator has not obtained the consent of all affected landowners.

Shelli Meyer testified in support of LB916. In 2021, she said, a carbon dioxide sequestration company notified her parents of its intent to acquire land on their northeast Nebraska farm to build a pipeline.

Meyer said the bill would protect Nebraskans’ property rights and ensure they are not forced to have an unwanted infrastructure project on their land.

“Some landowners may choose to participate in these projects — that is their right,” she said. “But my parents and many others should also have the right to say no … and be left alone.”

Testifying in opposition to the bill was Mark Halstead of Kimball. Halstead said he and several other landowners in the area have signed easements with a company building a carbon dioxide injection well project south of Dix. Others would like to join the project but are unable to sign easements for various reasons outside their control, he said.

Halstead said the 100% landowner consent requirement proposed in LB916 is “unrealistic” and would halt the project, which is expected to bring much needed revenue to communities in the panhandle.

“I do not feel it is right to deny the vast majority of landowners the possibility of an economically beneficial project in a geographic area that, quite frankly, could really use the help,” he said.

Brent Hoops testified in opposition to the bill on behalf of several agricultural organizations, the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Nebraska Economic Developers Association. He said the state’s ethanol producers have made “significant” investments in projects designed to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to increase the value of Nebraska’s ethanol.

LB916 would make carbon dioxide sequestration projects “extraordinarily difficult to permit,” Hoops said, effectively stopping further investment and cutting off the industry’s access to low-carbon fuel markets and emerging international and private markets.

“Without access to those markets,” he said, “ethanol production growth could simply move to other states, taking corn demand, jobs and investment with it.”

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.