House Bill 51, “Industrial and energy development protection,” sponsored by Rep. Sue Wallis, R-Recluse, died in committee on Wednesday. As introduced, the measure would have required individuals and organizations that want to challenge an energy or industrial development permit to put post a bond to make up for any delay a company incurs due to the challenge.

The bond amount would be forfeited to the defendant if the court rules against the person or groups that filed the challenge. Environmental groups, including the Powder River Basin Resource Council, had argued there are long-standing administrative and legal procedures to prove standing when challenging a permit application or permitted energy project.

A major point of contention between conservationists and developers in Wyoming is the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council‘s administrative appeals process, which considers challenges to permitting actions by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Developers complain the process is used to unnecessarily delay projects, while protesters often argue they must force DEQ to follow its own rules, regulations as well as state and federal environmental protection laws.

Dustin Bleizeffer covers energy and climate at WyoFile. He has worked as a coal miner, an oilfield mechanic, and for more than 25 years as a statewide reporter and editor primarily covering the energy...

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. To add to Dewey’s account, the most hilarious aspect of the backlash against Donahue’s book–an argument for eliminating public lands (BLM) grazing to protect biological diversity–was a bill filed by Senate President Bob Grieve to abolish the University of Wyoming School of Law. That’s right, abolish the School of Law. If one needs proof that the Wyoming Legislature is perennially without adult supervision, Grieve’s bill is all the proof you need. And every legislature, especially the current one, proves it again and again. Just another version of pre-school.

    RH

    Reply

  2. Wallis’s bill is almost as hilarious as the one that Frank Philp, the big sheeprancher from metropilitan Shoshoni , tried to ram and cram through the Lej about 10 years ago. Philp’s law would’ve made it a high crime to ” Disparage Agriculture”, in any way .

    That’s right…calling out ” Bullsh_t” where the public could plainly hear the term would’ve been a misdemeanor, or worse. Philp’s bill was a direct backlash to UW law professor Debra Donahue’s book about the corruption and favoritism in public lands management ( both federal and state). Wyomig’s agrarian leiglstors almost formed a posse and lynch mob over Donahue’s revelation of the truth sod early guarded by ranchers.

    I hear echoes of that humorous episode in Wallis’ ” Disparagement of Energy and Minerals” initiative. If only she weren’t so serious about it…

    Like Al Simpson says, ” We have a lot of Sacred Cows in Wyoming. Some of them are even cattle…”

    Reply