A service of the Missouri Audubon Council (MAC)

Missouri Legislative Update - 1998 Session

Missouri Audubon Council's Priority Bills

Note: This page will include only bills from the 1998 session. of the General Assembly. For other years go to http://www.audubon.org/chapter/mo/mo/legis.htm.

Final Report on 1998 Legislative Session

As the 1998 General Assembly came to a close, environmental issues saw little improvement and also little damage. After fighting major battles with industry over environmental audits and corporate hog farms in years past, the calmness of the session proved that the advocates for programs harmful to the environment have halted their efforts for the time being. The following highlights the final outcome of the legislative priorities of the Missouri Audubon Council.

Chip Mill Legislation

The number one priority for the Missouri Audubon Council this year was bringing the issue of the destruction of chip mills to the Missouri Legislature. A number of environmental groups were concerned with this issue including; the Sierra Club, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Missouri Heartwood, the Missouri Conservation Federation, etc.

House Bill 1883 was drafted and filed by Representatives Mike Schilling (D- Springfield), Representative Bill Foster (R- Poplar Bluff) and Representative Denny Meredith (I- Caruthersville). The bill was assigned to the State Parks, Natural Resources and Mining Committee and received a hearing where testimony was provided by Missouri Audubon as well as the other environmental groups interested. The hearing was late in the session and no action was taken.

Despite the fact that the bill progressed no further than its committee hearing, activity on the issue occurred in other areas. A meeting was held with the Governor's Chief of Staff, Brad Ketcher, to brief him on the issue and raise concerns about the industry and the potential effect on Missouri. Thank you letters were sent by Audubon members in response to this meeting.

In addition, a trip was taken by interested parties (environmentalists as well as government and forest industry representatives) to see different types of forestry being practiced in Missouri and to discuss how chip mills would accelerate unsutainable forestry practices. Missouri Audubon member Dave Bedan participated in this event. Now that the groundwork has been laid, Missouri Audubon will continue to move forward with this priority.

Billboard Legislation Attached to MODOT Bill

Language that was agreed to by the environmental community as well as the outdoor advertising industry was amended to SB 883, a bill addressing oversight of the Missouri Department of Transportation, sponsored by Senator Danny Staples (D- Emminence). The language states, "Any city or county shall have the authority to adopt regulations with respect to outdoor advertising that are more restrictive than the height, size, lighting and spacing provisions of sections 226.500 to 226.600, RsMO." The amendment also changed the fee structure from $100 per year to "two percent of the gross annual revenue" from the billboard be paid to the city or county in which it resides.

It was announced last week that the Save our Scenery (SOS) Campaign, run by Scenic Missouri did not gain enough signatures to place the billboard issue on the November ballot. A business coalition, Stop Taking Our Property (STOP) was formed in opposition to the ballot initiative. In addition, some unions voiced opposition to the proposal, citing members' jobs. Although the measure did not make it to the November ballot, the provisions and restrictions that the environmental community has been advocating for were accomplished through legislation.

1998 Highlights

HB 1883- Relating to chip mills.

Status: Committee Hearing- State Parks, Natural Resources and Mining

Audubonıs priority legislation received a hearing but no further action on the legislative end. A meeting with Governor Carnahanıs Chief of Staff was held with Audubon representatives, and other environmental advocates to discuss a study on the issue and a moratorium on further permits until the study has been completed. It is possible that the Governor will commission a study on the issue with representatives from a variety of the concerned parties.

SB 883- Relating to the Department of Transportation

Status: Truly Agreed and Finally Passed

This legislation was introduced to provide oversight to the Department of Transportation and was amended to include language relating to restrictions on billboards. Both the outdoor advertising companies and environmental groups agreed to the change in law that will allow cities or counties to adopt more restrictive regulations and changes the fee paid to the city or county to 2% of the gross annual revenue produced by the billboard.

HB 1161- Relating to public drinking water

Status: Truly Agreed and Finally Passed

Legislation relating to loans for improvements to public drinking water facilities was approved this year.

SB 619- Relating to motor fuel tax

Status: Truly Agreed and Finally Passed

This legislation was amended to include language that would allow St. Louis to sell reformulated gasoline (RFG) in an attempt to come into compliance with EPA clean air standards.

Note: A number of negative proposals including "no stricter than Federal" and environmental audit legislation received little to no attention from the General Assembly.

-- from: Penman & Winton Consulting Group for the Missouri Audubon Council

Legislative Report at MAC Meeting - May 2, 1998 - Scott Penman and Sara Schuett

A Legislative Update and Action Alert were distributed. There are two main issues concerning chip mills in Missouri: (1) creating a board to study the impact of chip mills and how to regulate them, and (2) establishing a moratorium on allowing additional chip mill operations. This moratorium bill had a good hearing from MAC, Sierra Club, and the Coalition on the Environment. It did not go anywhere because (a) the constitutionality of a moratorium is questioned because there is no permit system for chip mills, and (b) there is not total unity among conservationists and small forest products businesses on how to approach the issue.

Currently, there are two chip mills in southeast Missouri (Mill Spring and Scott City) and one smaller operation in Goodman. Two weeks ago, environmentalists met with the governor's chief of staff. Penman's impression is that the governor's office, through MDC and DNR, has been looking at the issue and may be looking favorably at taking some action, but not now, as the session is almost over. Bedan noted that any study should be long term and broad based, rather than a three month study, and that non-point source pollution in the watershed of clearcuts should be looked at.

Klataske brought two publications on chip mills: (1) Chipping Forests and Jobs, A Report on the Economic and Environmental Impacts of Chip Mills in the Southeast. It is available for $7.00 mailed to The Dogwood Alliance, PO Box 4193, Chattanooga, TN 37405-0826, (423) 267-3977. E-mail: dogwood@essential.org. (2) High Capacity Chip Mills Versus Sustainable Forestry in Missouri, published by Missouri Coalition for the Environment, 6267 Delmarr #2-E, St. Louis, MO 63130 (314) 727-0600.

Ruhr suggested that the tourist industry should be interested in this issue. It was discussed that we should try to educate communities and landowners that chip mills are not in their best interest, but at the rate we could do that, the forests would be gone. Ruhr suggested asking Jane Epperson, in the planning division of MDC, to speak at the next MAC meeting. It would be helpful to have a vision of the results years down the road as incentive for the public to do the right thing.

Penman asked (1) for information on what other states have done to regulate chip mills, (2) if there is a governor's commission with an opportunity for citizen involvement, are there names that MAC would recommend to be members of that group? Schuett commented that water pollution permits may be a good option for controlling clearcutting -- have other states done this? Klataske suggested that maybe the sales tax for soil conservation should buy conservation easements in the Ozarks and/or subsidize fencing for riparian areas; should conservation groups sponsor a mini-conference and bring in speakers from out of state?

Penman gave summaries of all bills to Uhlenhuth, who will copy and mail them upon request. 75 bills concerning envrionmental legislation are being tracked. Anyone who wants to receive the Action Alert may request it at the MAC web page, http://www.audubon.org/chapter/mo/mo/,or send your name, address, e-mail address to Sara Schuett, Penman & Winton Consulting Group, Inc., P.O. Box 684, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Chip Mill Bill Stalls in Legislature

AUDUBON COUNCIL ALERT - May 1, 1998

Chip Mill Meeting Held With Governor's Staff

Representatives of the Missouri Audubon Council (lobbyist Scott Penman, River Bluffs Chapter member Dave Bedan, St. Louis Chapter President Jim Holsen), the Sierra Club (Ken Midkiff, Program Director) and the Coalition for the Environment (Pat Waterston, President; Roger Pryor, Senior Policy Director and Yvonne M. Homeyer) met with Brad Ketcher, Chief of Staff for the Governor on Earth day, April 22. The meeting provided environmental advocates the opportunity to voice concerns surrounding high capacity chip mill operations to the Executive Branch of Missouri government. Information relayed to Mr. Ketcher was similar to the contents of HB 1883 (See previous alert below). Advocates stressed the need for a study on the issue and a moratorium on the issuance of permits for these mills until a study can be completed.

Mr. Ketcherıs interest in the subject, along with earlier reports, suggest that the Governor is likely to designate a study or commission to look at this issue and its' potential effect on Missouri. We will continue to keep you updated on the progress of our efforts.

In response to this recent meeting, we are requesting that Thank You letters be sent to the Governorıs office for his interest and to encourage a Study or Commission on the issue of chip mills.

The bill that was filed on chip mills (HB 1883) is not expected to advance any further this session. However, by introducing this subject to legislators, we have begun the educational process on this topic.

FOLLOW UP LETTERS NEEDED!

Brad Ketcher, Chief of Staff for Governor Mel Carnahan, met with Missouri Audubon and other environmental activists who oppose high capacity chip mill operations and their potential to destroy Missouri's forests. We are requesting that letters be sent to the Governor as a follow up to the meeting that took place on April 22. Please be sure to include the following in your letter:

• Thank the Governor for his interest and concern about this issue and for allowing his staff to take the time to meet with Missouri Audubon Council and other environmental groups.
• Urge the Governor to establish a Commission that is broad enough in scope to include: legislators, environmentalists, concerned citizens, representatives of the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Conservation. It is our hope that this Commission could study the effect of chip mills on the state, citizens, wildlife and natural resources, and submit their findings to the General Assembly.
• Remind the Governor that we are concerned about high capacity chip mills moving into and operating in Missouri before a comprehensive study can be completed. One way to do this is to establish a moratorium on new permits for high capacity chip mills.

Letters should be sent to:

Governor Mel Carnahan
State Capitol Building - Room 216
Jefferson City, MO 65102

HB 1161 Advances to the Senate Calendar

HB 1161, sponsored by Representative Gary Wiggins (New Cambria), relates to public drinking water and brings Missouri statute into compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Similar legislation was defeated due to time constraints in the 1997 Legislative Session. HB 1161 is currently #4 on the Senate Calendar of House Bills for Third Reading and could come up for debate next week.

HB 1161 establishes the "Drinking Water Revolving Fund" to supply loans to public water suppliers for improvements and penalties for noncompliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill is being strongly supported by rural water districts who are financially strapped and whose citizens could greatly benefit from improvements realized through the loan program established in the bill.

SCS SB 541 Killed in Committee

Senator Wayne Goode (Normandy) was the main sponsor of SB 541, which would have lifted the ban in St. Louis on reformulated gasoline (RFG) and allowed a program, commonly called Clean Screening, to replace the current IM240 for auto emissions inspections. The legislation was debated at length in the Senate and seemed that it would not make it to the House. Miraculously, the legislation did advance to the House, only to be killed in the House Environment and Energy Committee after numerous hearings.

St. Louis is in danger of being sanctioned by the EPA for not meeting air quality standards. Supporters of this legislation were hoping that by lifting the ban on RFG and allowing the Clean Screening Program to be established, the air quality in St. Louis would improve and the impending sanctions from the EPA could be avoided.

- Sara J. Schuett for the Missouri Audubon Council

The House Committee on State Parks, Natural Resources and Mining held a legislative hearing on HB 1883, relating to chip mills, on Wednesday, March 25, 1998. We apologize for not being able to alert you to the hearing- notice from the Chair was only given 24 hours prior to the meeting.

Missouri Audubon members, Dave Bedan (River Bluffs Chapter) and Jim Holsen (St. Louis Chapter) testified on behalf of the Missouri Audubon Council and the St. Louis Audubon Society. Both Dave and Jim outlined Missouri Audubonıs concern for the environment in relation to the destruction witnessed in other states from high capacity chip mill operations. Dave requested that the Committee consider extending the length of the study, suggesting the three months currently in the legislation would not be enough time to assess the problem. Other environmental groups testifying for the legislation included: Sierra Club, Conservation Federation, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Missouri Heartwood, and a land owner/forest manager.

Testifying against the legislation was the Missouri Forest Products Association and a land owner/ forest manager. The testimony against the legislation from the landowner centered around his belief that placing a moratorium on chip mills, a legal business, might not be constitutional and that this issue also involves land owner rights.

There are several actions that need to be taken by Audubon members in Missouri to help in the advancement of this legislation:

• Letters of support for HB 1883 should be sent to the members of the State Parks, Natural Resources and Mining Committee. The letter should include the reasons you support the bill, and a request to the legislator to vote the bill Do Pass from committee. Letters sent to the Chair of the committee should also include a request to hold an Executive Session on HB 1883 and then release the bill from Committee. (Names and Addresses of Committee Members, as well as highlights of HB 1883 are below).
• Information relating to the destruction caused by chip mills should be forwarded to Committee members with your letters. Committee members expressed their desire for more information on the chip mill issue. Please send a copy of any information sent to: Penman & Winton Consulting (P.O. Box 684, Jefferson City, MO 65102).
• Alert your own legislator concerning your support for HB 1883. With the amount of legislation filed each year, it is possible that your legislators are unfamiliar with this bill. Also, because this is the first year for the legislation, there is a greater possibility that they need to be educated on the issue.

Summary of HB 1883

• HB 1883 requires the Departments of Conservation and Natural Resources to conduct a joint study of the long-term impacts of high-capacity chip mills on private forest resources. The study will examine impacts on economics, tourism, recreation, and the environment.
• No further construction, location, or expansion of high-capacity chip mills is permitted until the study is completed.
• A steering committee will oversee the study. Members serve without compensation and include a member of the House appointed by the Speaker, a member of the Senate appointed by the President Pro Tem, and the following members appointed by the directors of DNR & MDC: a representative of a high-capacity chip mill, a non-industrial forest owner, a logger, a hardwood sawmill operator, a forest economist, a forest ecologist, a representative of the Clean Water Commission, the chair of the University of Missouri School of Natural Resources, a citizen conservationist, an employee of DNR & conservation.

Suggestions

• The study should be increased, from three months (currently in the bill) to one year. This will allow for a more comprehensive study.
• Legislators should be asked to support HB 1883 and vote the bill Do Pass from committee.

House Committee on State Parks, Natural Resources and Mining

Letters should be addressed:

-- by Sara J. Schuett for the Missouri Audubon Council

For the current status of this bill go to HB 1883

1998 Legislative Priorities

On January 17, 1998, after carefully reviewing the lengthy list of bills that have been filed by Missouri Legislators on environmental issues, the Missouri Audubon Council has developed priorities for the 1998 Legislative Session. Over 50 bills of interest are currently being tracked, among them, almost a dozen that could be considered priority issues. In previous years, the Missouri Audubon Council has fought against a number of environmentally harmful proposals. Although the sentiment of the legislature seems to be turning away from some of the more harmful proposals, many bills that have been filed this session, echo legislation of past years. The following highlights the Missouri Audubon Council's Legislative Priorities, as well as a legislative update.

• Chip Mills

  Topping Audubon's priority list for 1998 is the growing chip mill problem in Southeast Missouri and other areas of the state. This issue has previously received some media attention, but never has legislative action been taken. Legislation will be introduced to establish a committee to study the effects of chip mills on the environment. Audubon is researching chip mills to provide members and Missouri legislators with more information on the subject.

  (Note: On March 25, 1998 the Council presented testimony on HB 1883 which would mandate a study of the impact of chip mills with a moratorium on permits while the sudy is being conducted.)

• Environmental & Conservation Fees

  A second priority for Missouri Audubon involves the Hancock amendment, limiting the amount of revenue the state of Missouri can collect. Senator Wayne Goode (D- Normandy) filed SJR 22 to exclude fees established for environmental protection, conservation or natural resources from counting in total state revenues or included as an expense of state government. SJR 22 received a hearing on January 22 in the Senate Appropriations Committee, but no further action has been taken. The current situation of excess state revenue has brought tax cut proposals before the legislature from a variety of groups. The most prominent is Missouri business groups, who testified against SJR 22, in the hopes of seeing the Hancock limit afford them more tax breaks.

• "No Stricter Than Federal"

  Missouri Audubon has advocated against legislation in previous years that would not allow Missouri to have stricter environmental laws than are in place at the Federal level. This issue continues to be a priority for business and industry groups, and therefore a priority for environmental groups. Several proposals have been filed relating to this topic. Senator Larry Rohrbach (R- California) presented SB 750 to the Senate Commerce and Environment Committee on February 10, which was titled ³Relating to Environmental Protection². The bill would set up "no stricter than federal" language in almost every section of environmental law and require the Department of Natural Resources to perform risk assessments before enacting rules and regulations. The bill was supported by industry groups and opposed by environmental groups and the new Director of the Department of Natural Resources. No vote has been taken on the legislation. A House version of Senator Rohrbach's legislation was filed by Representative Mark Richardson (R- Poplar Bluff), HB 1341, but has not received a hearing.

  On a more positive note, Representative Joan Bray (D- St. Louis) filed HB 1060 which would repeal the restriction that the Missouri Air Conservation Commission may not enforce rules stricter than required by the Federal Clean Air Act. The bill was referred to the Environment and Energy Committee but has not yet received a hearing.

• "Veggie Libel" Legislation

  With the recent publicity from the Texas Cattleman's lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey, it is not a surprise that legislation has been filed in Missouri similar to the Texas statute. Representative Sam Leake (D- Center) introduced HB 923 to hold a person who disseminates a false statement about an agricultural product under circumstance in which the statement may be reasonably believed, liable to the producer for actual damages and up to three times the actual damages. This bill has not yet been heard in the House Judiciary Committee.

• Lead Mining Restrictions

  The Sierra Club circulated information and potential legislation to address environmental concerns related to lead mining prior to the legislative session. No legislation has been introduced on the subject thus far this session.

Issues Being Monitored

Several issues are being monitored for progress, along with the closely watched and lobbied legislative priorities.

• Restrictions on Hog and Poultry Operations
• Billboard Restriction Power to Localities
• Exemption of pesticides from Sales Tax
• High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
• Emissions Control Programs/Air Quality/ Reformulated Gasoline

- Compiled for the Missouri Audubon Council
by the Penman & Winton Consulting Group, Inc. - February 19, 1998

Below are some bills dealing with environmental subjects that have been filed in the Missouri General Assembly in the 1998 session:

HB 923 (Leake)--Penalties for defaming agricultural products and producers

This bill makes any person who disseminates a false statement regarding an agricultural producer or his agricultural product, under circumstances in which the statement may be reasonably believed, liable to the producer for actual damages, costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and damages of at least three times the actual damages.

Any person who disseminates a false statement with reference to an entire group or class of agricultural producers or products is liable to each producer for such producer's actual damages, costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as well as punitive damages. The plaintiff in a cause of action may ask the court to enjoin the defendant from such statements in the future.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 923.

HB 994 (Bray)--Environmental Justice and Equity Commision

This bill establishes the Environmental Equity and Justice Commission to investigate possible disproportionate distribution of environmental hazards in minority and low-income communities.

The 7 commission members serve without compensation and include the chairs of the Senate Commerce and Environment Committee, the House Energy and Environment Committee, the Hazardous Waste Management Commission, the Clean Water Commission, and the Conservation Commission, or their designees, and one member appointed by the President Pro Tem of the Senate and one member appointed by the Speaker of the House. The Department of Natural Resources provides staff for the commission.

The commission will compile data on a representative sample of potentially hazardous sites, including health statistics from the surrounding population, and review the effects of enforcement actions, statutes, rules, governmental policies, and economic and other factors which may have caused sites which pose a potential threat to human health to be concentrated in minority and low-income communities. The commission will also review methods to address any existing inequities, ensure future consideration of environmental equity and justice issues in governmental policies and procedures, and ensure equitable representation of individuals from minority and low-income communities in the environmental work force.

The commission will develop an interim report by July 1, 1999, solicit written comments, and hold at least 5 public hearings at sites convenient to minority and low-income communities. The commission will present its final report with any recommended legislation to the Governor and General Assembly by January 5, 2000, and then be dissolved.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 994.

HB 995 (Bray)--High-occupancy vehicle lanes

This bill allows the Transportation Commission to designate high-occupancy lanes. A high occupancy lane is one designated for vehicles occupied by a certain minimum number of passengers. The commission may designate the occupancy level of vehicles required to use the lane and the time of day when lane usage is restricted. The requirements for high-occupancy lanes will not apply to emergency vehicles responding to an emergency, law enforcement vehicles, motorcycles or motorist-assist vehicles, and maintenance vehicles of the Transportation Department. Any person who operates a vehicle in violation of restrictions on high-occupancy lanes is guilty of a misdemeanor.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 995.

HB 1035 (Dougherty)--Allows use of reformulated fuel in St. Louis for clean air attainment

This bill repeals provisions that prohibit the sale of reformulated gasoline in the portions of the St. Louis area with enhanced vehicle emissions testing.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 1035

HB 1060 (Bray)--Removes "no stricter than federal law" from Missouri air quality law

This bill repeals the restriction that does not allow Missouri Air Conservation Commission rules to be stricter or enforced sooner than required by the federal Clean Air Act.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 1060

HB 1075 (Kreider)-Exempts crop pesticides from sales tax

This bill exempts from state and local sales and use taxes all sales of pesticides or herbicides used in the production of crops, livestock, or poultry.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 1075

HB 1095 (Smith)-Revises open meeting law



This bill makes several changes relating to governmental meetings and records, and arrest records.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 1095

HB 1104 (Treadway)-Revises state air laws to comply with federal standards

This bill repeals all statutes that authorize implementation of an enhanced vehicle emissions inspection program in the St. Louis area. The bill also recommends that the Air Conservation Commission consider adoption of the federal reformulated gasoline program in first or second class counties within any area federally designated to be in moderate or higher nonattainment status for ground-level ozone.

For the current status of this bill go to HB 1104

HB 1883 (Schilling) Mandates DNR/MDC study of high capacity chip mills

This bill requires the Departments of Conservation and Natural Resources to conduct a joint study of the long-term impacts of high-capacity chip mills on private forest resources. The study, to be completed by December 31, 1998, will examine impacts on economics, tourism, recreation, and the environment, and include recommendations to address potential concerns. No further construction, location, or expansion of high-capacity chip mills is permitted until the study is completed.

For the current status of the bill go to HB 1883

SB 511 (Ehlmann)-Floodplain management

This act regulates development within flood plains. This bill is identical to the Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 167 (1997). The major provisions of the act: 1. Create a Division of Flood Plain Management within the State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA); 2. Require SEMA issued permits for developments within special flood hazard areas that do not have planning and zoning, or a permit from the jurisdiction affected if zoning ordinances exist; 3. Require SEMA to obtain comments from the Department of Natural Resources and Agriculture prior to issuing permits; 4. Mandate all state development, except transportation projects, to adhere to the standards of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); 5. Eligibility for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) flood assistance will be restricted to communities participating in the NFIP and all relevant documentation for such funds are deemed public records that must be permanently maintained; 6. Designate any fraud or abuse in applications for flood assistance funds as a felony with investigative jurisdiction vested in the local prosecutor or the attorney general; 7. Require appraisers, real estate brokers and salesmen to disclose the relevant status of any property in relation to special flood hazard areas; 8. Direct pipeline levee crossings to be done in a specified manner that does not impact the structural integrity of the levee; 9. Necessitate that insurance policies must indicate whether coverage extends to loss caused by floods; 10. Compel the Division to work with the Corps of Engineers to establish 20, 100 and 500 year flood level maps; 11. Allow levee districts to enter into agreements to not rebuild any levee above the 20 year level in order to participate in the 20% cost-share Levee Tax Fund program (supplemented by the Soil and Water Sales and Use Tax Fund); and 12. Classify any levee built above the 500 year level as an industrial levee.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 511

SB 541 (Goode)-Amends enhanced inspection and maintenance program for St. Louis clean air

This act modifies the motor vehicle emission inspection program for the greater St. Louis metropolitan area. The inspections were mandated in SB 590, from 1994, but have not been implemented. The Missouri Highway Patrol and the Department of Natural Resources shall establish a public education program on existing vehicle maintenance requirements, attainment of federal air quality standards and the measures considered to satisfy the air quality standards. The Highway Patrol may provide enforcement procedures and personnel for the existing, BAR90 program. All rules promulgated by the Air Conservation Commission shall be subject to the rulemaking provisions of chapter 536, RSMo. The act restricts establishment of the enhanced emissions inspection program to the urbanized portion of the St. Louis nonattainment area, as determined by the local metropolitan planning organization.

Currently, the Missouri Air Conservation Commission is prohibited from establishing an enhanced I/M program under chapter 643 in any area where the Governor has "opted-in" to require reformulated gas (RFG) in that same area. The act removes this prohibition on the establishment of the enhanced I/M program in areas with RFG. The act provides that the inspection program shall not be implemented until after final disposition of all lawsuits brought by the Attorney General as required by SB 590, including all appeals of rulings. The act requires the Department of Natural Resources and the Missouri Highway Patrol to enter into an interagency agreement covering all aspects of the administration and enforcement of any enhanced emissions inspection implemented under Chapter 643, RSMo. The Department shall license inspections stations, rather than contract for stations. The Air Conservation Commission shall delineate underserved areas and establish incentives to encourage the establishment of stations in these areas. Service management, coordination and data processing may be provided by the Department or another person. Licenses shall be for up to seven years and shall be annually reviewed. A license may be suspended or revoked if the licensee is not meeting the requirements of the applicable law and rules. The act removes authorization for the Department to purchase the inspection station facilities and lease the facilities to the licensees. When establishing the number and location of inspection stations, public convenience shall be given first priority and financial viability of stations shall be considered. The act requires that at least three inspection stations shall be capable of testing vehicles which are four-wheel-drive only. The act provides that the pressure and purge tests shall be nonintrusive and prohibits a vehicle from failing the inspection based solely on the visual inspection.

Existing law allows an organization of motor vehicle dealers to establish one or more inspection stations for inspecting only vehicles owned by members of the organization. The act broadens this provision to allow any person or organization to establish stations for inspecting only vehicles owned by the person or members of the organization. The minimum size of fleet for which the fleet operator may establish an inspection station for such fleet is lowered from five hundred to one hundred vehicles. A motor vehicle dealer may sell a vehicle with prior inspection and approval within 90 days preceding the date of sale. A dealer may also sell a vehicle without prior inspection and approval. The act allows such a vehicle, if returned by the buyer for failing the emissions inspection, to be inspected and approved without the option for a waiver and then be returned to the buyer. The requirement for a dealer to provide a full refund if the vehicle is not returned with inspection and approval in five days is removed by the act. Inspectors must meet all training requirements established by the Department. Emission repair technicians must be certified by the Air Conservation Commission. Repair costs may be applied toward reaching the waiver amount only if the repairs are performed by a certified repair technician. The act requires a continuously-updated electronic display of the current waiting time at each station. The twenty dollar fee reduction for persons required to wait more than one hour for an inspection is removed by the act, and the maximum fee reduction shall be ten dollars for any person required to wait more than thirty minutes for an inspection. The waiting time shall begin when the vehicle is on the premises of the inspection station and available for inspection. The Highway Patrol may assign personnel who are not highway patrol officers, known as "brown shirts", to investigate and enforce all emissions inspection programs.

This act is similar to SB 72 from 1997. The act contains penalty provisions.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 541

SB 542 (Goode)-Amends hazardous waste generation and disposal fees

This act amends law pertaining to the generation and disposal of hazardous waste. Small quantity generators of hazardous waste will not have to report more often than annually.

FEES ON HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES - The act imposes fees on hazardous waste disposal facilities. The amount of the fee is based on the method of disposal. The fees shall be assessed on a calendar year basis based on units authorized to operate on July 1 of the year, and fees shall be paid by December 31 each year. If more than one unit is operated on a site, then only the fee on the unit with the highest rate is assessed. Fees on facilities shall be assessed as according to the following schedule: Type of Disposal Fee f/Commercial Unit Fee f/Private Unit Land Disposal $42,600 $36,125 Incinerator $37,200 $31,600 Energy Recovery $31,875 $27,100 Other $21,250 $10,625

FEES ON GENERATION AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE - The act eliminates the fees on hazardous wastes based upon the method of storage and the waste's characteristics. The act imposes fees on hazardous waste which is generated or disposed of in Missouri, or both, but only one fee will be assessed on any given amount of waste. The fee shall be based upon the method of disposal according to the following schedule: Method of Disposal Fee per Ton Recycling $2.60 Energy Recovery (Fuel $5.20 Blending) Other $7.80 The base rate of the fees shall be adjusted by rule to bring in one and three-fourths million dollars per year. The minimum annual fee shall be fifty dollars, and the maximum annual fee shall be seventy-five thousand dollars per generating site and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per company. The total annual fee under the act for facilities and generation and disposal of hazardous waste shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars per company. Fees on generation or disposal of hazardous waste shall not apply to: 1) wastes generated by hospitals, 2) waste discharged to a publicly-owned treatment works, 3) waste disposed of under an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste site remedial plan, 4) smelter slag waste, or 5) waste generated by the state or a political subdivision. If the Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund balance exceeds twelve million dollars, the base rate of the fees shall be reduced so that the balance falls below twelve million dollars during the next year.

The act has a January 1, 1999 effective date. This act is similar to SB 145 from 1997.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 542

SB 543 (Goode)-Safe Drinking Water Act amendments

The act broadens rulemaking authority of the Safe Drinking Water Commission (SDWC) to cover the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The SDWC shall establish criteria for priorities for drinking water loans and shall develop an Intended Use Plan for funding such loans to submit to the Clean Water Commission. The Department of Natural Resources shall certify public water system operators. Rules of the Safe Drinking Water Commission shall be promulgated pursuant to Chapter 536, RSMo. Existing rules authority is repealed, but existing rules are not affected. The rulemaking authority of the Commission and the authority of the General Assembly to review, delay or annul rules are nonseverable. The Drinking Water Revolving Fund is created. The Safe Drinking Water Commission shall establish criteria for priorities for drinking water loans and shall develop an Intended Use Plan. At least 35% of grant funding shall be made available for qualifying systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons.

Permitted public water systems must designate an organization to serve as the "continuing authority" for the system. After Oct. 1, 1999, new community and other nontransient water systems must show that they have and will maintain the resources and capability to comply with safe drinking water law. Any community or other nontransient water system subject to an administrative order for significant noncompliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act shall be required to designate a "continuing authority" and demonstrate the capability to comply with safe drinking water law. The Department may allow testing under a federally- authorized "flexible monitoring program". Technical changes re publishing of annual reports on water systems by DNR. Each water supplier shall provide each customer with the federally-required report of test results. The Department may issue administrative orders pertaining to public water systems. Civil penalties may be sought for violations of orders and rules, as well as violations of law. The Department shall not seek a civil penalty if an administrative penalty was assessed and collected. The Department shall seek to resolve violations with conference, conciliation and persuasion. The act authorizes the SDWC to assess administrative penalties under requirements and procedures which are generally similar to those already provided in law for several other regulatory programs within the Department. The maximum penalty is one thousand dollars per day for systems serving more than ten thousand persons and two hundred and fifty dollars per day for smaller systems. The maximum penalty per violation is twenty- five thousand dollars. Penalties may be appealed to the Commission and then to circuit court. Administrative penalties shall not be imposed if the violation only has "potential" to cause harm to health or the environment. The Department may identify the origins of monitored drinking water contaminants. The Department may establish a voluntary, source water petition protection program. Rules of the Clean Water Commission shall be promulgated pursuant to Chapter 536, RSMo. Existing rules authority is repealed, but existing rules are not affected. Rulemaking authority of the Commission and the authority of the General Assembly to review, delay or annul rules are nonseverable. The Department may provide assistance under Chapter 644, RSMo, to state agencies and community and nonprofit, noncommunity water systems. The Clean Water Commission shall establish priorities for wastewater projects and implement the Intended Use Plan for drinking water loans. The Water and Wastewater Loan Fund may also be used to provide assistance to community and nonprofit, noncommunity water systems and private wastewater facilities. Moneys in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund shall be used for the purposes of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and shall be accounted for separately.

FLOOD PLAINS - A proper permit from an agency with appropriate jurisdiction over a flood prone area shall constitute conclusive proof of a "reasonable use" in any court case regarding a surface water project in a flood plain.

WETLANDS - The Department of Natural resources shall certify "nationwide" permits established by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act without conditions relating to wetlands.

LOSING STREAMS - The Clean Water Commission may adopt a rebuttable presumption that the portion of a stream extending upstream up to one mile from a designated losing stream is also a losing stream. The Commission may not adopt any other presumptions that streams are losing streams and shall base those determinations on actual information about the stream.

The act is similar to HCS/HB 288 from 1997. The act contains an emergency clause. The act contains penalty provisions.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 543

SB 567 (Goode)-Environmental audit

This act establishes an environmental audit program within the Department of Natural Resources for entities regulated by the Department. To participate, an operator must apply to the Department, submit a dated environmental audit report, commit to correct violations expeditiously, and submit a compliance plan. All minor violations shall be corrected within 90 days of the date of application and other violations shall be corrected within 270 days. In reviewing the reasonableness of a compliance schedule, the Director shall take into account information supplied by the regulated facility and information developed by the agency staff which may include information provided by the public. The Director shall approve or disapprove of the compliance schedule based upon the nature and consequences of the violations, the economic circumstances of the facility, and the time required to implement pollution prevention strategies.

The Department shall not initiate enforcement action for the term of the approved compliance schedule, as long as the facility meets the schedule. The time limitation within which prosecution of an offense or the filing of a private civil suit must be commenced shall start to run on the earliest day on which an enforcement action may be filed. Pursuant to Chapter 610, RSMo, the information contained in an audit report may be closed by the Director for no more than 90 days unless closing such information is contrary to the interests of justice or the public safety or welfare. Records and information that may not be closed are detailed in subsection 7 of Section 640.048, RSMo. The Department could seek civil and criminal penalties for a facility which: 1) fails to meet the compliance schedule; 2) is found to have violated an environmental law within the three years prior to the submission of the application; 3) caused serious harm; or 4) presents an imminent threat to the public health or the environment. A violation of an environmental law does not include minor or paperwork violations. When determining the amount of any penalty, the Department shall consider the cost of corrective actions in relation to the economic benefit and the amount of savings accruing to the operator for his failure to comply with the law. This act is similar to SB 125 from 1997.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 567

SB 572 (Johnson)-Floodplain management

This act is known as the Missouri Flood Plain Management Act and accomplishes the following: 49.635 -- Designates the sections as the Missouri Flood Plain Management Act 49.638 -- Definitions (modified to be consistent with the federal definitions) 49.641 -- Purpose clause 49.644(1) -- Names SEMA as the state coordinator for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and state-owned development within flood plains 49.644(2) -- Directs SEMA to give priority to efforts that include local resources 49.648(1) -- Requires insurance policies issued after March 1, 1999 to indicate whether coverage extends to loss caused by flood 49.648(2) -- Requires appraisers, real estate brokers and real estate salespersons to disclose information about a property's status in relation to special flood hazard areas 49.648(3) -- Requires communities to participate in the NFIP to qualify for FEMA or CDBG flood assistance, unless otherwise approved by the administration 49.649(1) -- Allows variances to be issued by community authorities or, in the absence of applicable zoning ordinances, by SEMA in a binding fashion 49.649(2) -- All flood plain development must comply with community zoning ordinances 49.649(3) -- All state-owned development within flood plains must be pursuant to a SEMA issued permit 49.649(4) -- Plans for proposed railway development within flood plains shall be filed with SEMA for informational purposes.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 572

SB 582 (Ehlmann)-First-class counties may regulate billboards

This act allows first classification charter counties to regulate the height, spacing and lighting of outdoor advertising structures within the county. Such ordinance may be more restrictive than state law. Limits are imposed upon billboard fees enacted by counties using this new authority.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 582

SB 593 (Goode)-Expedited review process for new air pollution source permits

This act creates an option for an "expedited review" of a permit to construct an air contaminant source. A permit applicant may offer to reimburse the Department of Natural Resources for costs of staff overtime or private consultants needed to review the permit in an expedited manner. The Department may refuse the offer or accept the offer if permit approval priorities will not be disrupted by the expedited review. Reimbursements for staff overtime and consultant costs are not subject to the current limit of fifty dollars per hour for construction permit reviews, and may be established at competitive market prices. Reimbursements shall be placed in an appropriate fund and used only to reimburse extra costs incurred under expedited reviews. Reimbursement shall not affect the Department's decision on the permit or what conditions are to be included in the permit. This act is similar to SB 245 from 1997.

For the current status of this bill go to SB 593

SJR 22 (Goode)-Excludes environmental, conservation, and natural resource fees from Hancock amendment.

This resolution would submit a constitutional amendment which, if approved by Missouri voters, provides that all fees established for environmental protection, conservation or natural resources purposes shall not be included in "total state revenues" or included as an expense of state government for the purposes of Hancock Amendment limitations.

For the current status of this bill go to SJR 22

For the more details on the final status of these and other bills in Missouri's 1998 legislative process
go to: Missouri General Assembly and click on "Bill Tracking Information".

Missouri State Government Home Page:

---

Go Back to: Audubon Missouri Legislative Page
Go to: Missouri Audubon Council Home Page
Go to: River Bluffs Audubon Society Home Page

Page First Published: 3/30/97
Page Updated: 6/13/97; 9/6/97; 1/5/98; 3/1/98; 3/30/98; 4/5/98; 6/2/98; 7/13/98