Changes being proposed to definition of state waters

BY MOLLY MILLER

missouri news network

JEFFERSON CITY – A member of the Missouri Legislature said he is reworking his bill that seeks to change the definition of waters of the state following a hearing earlier this month.

Sen. Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, sponsored Senate Bill 981 to redefine which water bodies are protected by state law.

Members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources heard Black’s bill on March 5. Opponents of the legislation raised concerns about confusion stemming from the language of the bill that might remove current protections.

Executive Director of the Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition, Mary Culler, testified against the change in definition: “The current definitions of waters of the state is straightforward.”

“The current definition basically says that if a water extends onto the neighboring property, it’s a waters of the state. That was developed to protect downstream landowners from pollution,” she said.

According to Culler, the current law protects the downstream landowner should an upstream neighbor pollute their water source.

Culler said she felt the language proposed in SB 981 would cause uncertainty in deciding if a body of water fell under the jurisdiction of the state. She predicted a significant increase in state resources to perform hydrologic studies to determine the status of the body of water.

The Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources estimates each assessment will cost approximately $2,388, based on analysis of historical data.

In an interview after the hearing, Black said, “I don’t want to pollute your well water at your farm but sometimes we can overregulate (landowners) trying to keep those waters safe.”

After the hearing, Black decided to revisit the language of the proposed legislation to address some of those concerns that were highlighted in testimony. He also mentioned the impact of environmental groups that have been meeting with him to address protecting these water sources from pollutants.

“The water that I drink comes from an aquifer,” Black said, “so making sure that those waters are protected properly without too much government intervention, if we can accomplish then that would be helpful.”

In addition to adding clarifications for aquifers, Black said he is considering changing language for water percolating through soil or rocks and for perched water sources that exist underground but above an aquifer. Black is currently working with various groups to decide a final course of action for language addressing perched and percolated water.

Black’s bill comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, which effectively reduced the scope of the Clean Water Act by limiting the definition of sources of water.

Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 to regulate the quality of water and prevent the discharge of pollutants into water sources. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees the enforcement and regulation of the law.

The Sackett decision ruled that wetlands not continuously connected on the surface to a body of water would not be protected under federal law.

Representatives from Missouri agriculture interest groups, including the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, the Missouri Pork Association, the Missouri Soybean Association and the Missouri Farm Bureau spoke in support of Black’s bill during the hearing, citing a need for regulatory certainty in water regulation.

Black served as an agriculture educator and Future Farmers of America advisor for 33 years and is a cattle farmer. He said that he believes his background teaching students about waters of the United States and his personal experience as a farmer are the reasons why agricultural groups approached him about sponsoring this bill.

One of the groups testifying in support of SB 981, the Missouri Farm Bureau State PAC, endorsed Black in 2022 for the Senate seat he holds. Black has also received the organization’s Friend of Agriculture award multiple times during his time in the legislature.

Moving forward, Black said he hopes to publicly revisit the bill after legislators return from their break this week to gather more feedback on the new changes and refine the language.