CHEYENNE - A Senate committee hearing on an innovative carbon sequestration bill Monday turned into a debate over private property rights.

The Senate Judiciary Committee took testimony on House Bill 89, which, along with its companion, House Bill 90, is designed to create the legal framework for underground carbon dioxide storage.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal and key lawmakers have argued that the underground sequestration of carbon dioxide, a byproduct of coal-fired power, will be required if Wyoming's coal economy is to remain viable in the increasingly "green" economy.

The rub in Monday's committee meeting was over whether landowners should be allowed to sell the geological structures, known as "pore spaces," under their land where greenhouse gases may eventually be stored.

Laurie Goodman, president of the Wyoming Landowners Association, argued that allowing landowners to sell surface land and pore spaces separately would create new split-estate questions about which owner would have the right to develop the property.

She said it will be years before any companies begin to seriously pursue carbon sequestration in Wyoming, and she urged lawmakers to take more time gathering input and fine-tuning the law.

Along those same lines, Sen. Bruce Burns, R-Sheridan, proposed an amendment that would have prevented landowners from selling the pore spaces separately from the surface land. He said the Legislature could decide the issue during an interim study.

"I'm scared to death of any unintended consequences that we might run into by severing this (surface property and pore space) right now," Burns said. "There is nothing that is going to hurt us by holding off for a year."

Committee Chairman Sen. Tony Ross, R-Cheyenne, rejected the argument that more time is needed to gather input from the public on the issue. He noted that HB 89 has been available to the public since July, and the committee has met a number of times around the state to gather comments.

Lynne Boomgaarden, director of the Office of State Lands and Investments, testified that the unamended bill would essentially enact existing common law that is already followed by the courts.

Boomgaarden testified that restrictions on the sale of the pore spaces would amount to a radical shift in the law, and might be vulnerable to litigation.

She also said that dominant-estate concerns are probably somewhat irrelevant, because leases or deeds of sale would set out the parameters to access the pore spaces.

Pore spaces are "not dominant and subservient in the classical sense" of split-estate law, Boomgaarden said.

Rep. Tom Lubnau, R-Gillette, who has been working closely with the governor on the legislation, opposed Burns' amendment for philosophical reasons.

"I think it is bad public policy to tell a landowner what they should do with their land," Lubnau said.

After the debate, the committee rejected Burns' amendment and endorsed the bill, which now heads to the full Senate for debate.

House Bill 90, the companion bill, is also up on first reading in the Senate.

Reach capital bureau reporter Jared Miller at (307) 632-1244 or at {M3jared.miller@trib.com.