SF0063 amends Wyoming law governing partition fences to expressly allow private landowners whose property adjoins state lands to build a lawful fence along those state lands when the landowner does not hold a lease on the state parcel. If the state land is leased, the lessee must pay one-half of the actual construction cost of the fence. The bill also requires the Office of State Lands and Investments, or the lessee while the land is leased, to share in ongoing maintenance costs in proportion to each party’s interest in the fence.
The bill further directs the Board of Land Commissioners to adopt rules needed to implement the new fencing provisions. Its effective date is July 1, 2025, with the rulemaking section taking effect immediately upon enactment. In practical terms, the measure creates a clearer statutory framework for fencing along state trust lands and allocates responsibility for both installation and upkeep between adjoining private landowners and the state or lessee, depending on whether the land is leased.
Impact
This act changes W.S. 11-28-106 by adding a new subsection specifically addressing fencing adjacent to state lands. It expands the partition-fence statute to cover state land boundaries, assigns cost-sharing obligations for construction and maintenance, and imposes a rulemaking duty on the Board of Land Commissioners. The bill affects private landowners bordering state lands, the Office of State Lands and Investments, and lessees of state lands by clarifying who pays for fence construction and ongoing repairs.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial overall. It passed the Senate unanimously, advanced through House Agriculture with strong support, and was ultimately concurred in without opposition. The only notable resistance in the recorded history was a failed House amendment, suggesting some disagreement over details rather than the underlying policy of allowing and cost-sharing fencing along state lands.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been the specifics of implementation and cost allocation, as reflected by the failed House amendment. While the bill’s core approach—allowing fencing along state lands and sharing costs—received wide support, the amendment vote indicates at least some members wanted to alter the proposal before final passage. No committee transcripts are available, so the record does not identify a broader policy dispute beyond that procedural disagreement.