Missouri residents – Southwest Missouri residents, in particular — the quality of our drinking and recreational water is under attack.
At a public hearing in Jefferson City Tuesday morning, witnesses for and against Senate Bill 981 were in attendance to present their testimony regarding the bill, which proposes to exclude the phrase “all subsurface waters” from Missouri’s current definition of “Waters of The State.”
The change would affect the Missouri Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) ability to protect our groundwater.
Those in favor of the bill, including representatives for the Missouri Pork Association, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Missouri Farm Bureau and Associated Industries, say the change would bring Missouri’s definition more in line with the federal definition, which was loosened as the result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency) in 2023. In that case, justices ruled in favor of private landowners, who, in essence, claimed that what they did with the wetlands on their property would have no effect on an adjacent river and lake.
In other words, if we can’t see what’s happening underground, it’s not happening.
State Sen. Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, who introduced SB 981, represents the largest senatorial district in the state — the fertile northwest quadrant of Missouri, home to vast corporate agricultural enterprises.
“What I dump into the pond on my property won’t affect my neighbors,” Black said.
Black is obviously unfamiliar with southwest Missouri’s karst topography, where what goes in, goes through, and eventually comes out, perhaps miles and miles away.
Case in point, Roaring River Spring — the deepest (measured) spring in Missouri — where dye-tracing tests (which are still in progress) have not yet determined the extent of Roaring River Spring’s recharge basin.
At last count, to my knowledge, it was about 15 miles out, with testing ongoing beyond that radius.
In southwest Missouri, the proposed change in legislation will affect the groundwater from which, according to the DNR, 80 percent of Missouri residents’ drinking water is drawn.
Numerous opponents of the bill include representatives from the Sierra Club, the Conservation Federation, Missouri Coalition for the Environment, Missouri Rural Crisis Center, and the Missouri Stream Team, as well as the Presiding Commissioner of Camden County, environmental attorney Stephen Jeffery and individual farmers.
They say the proposed change in definition of the Clean Water Law would do nothing but cause confusion and legalize pollution.
Confusion would arise, they say, from the phrase, “relatively permanent,” in the description of a subsurface aquifer’s connection to surface water features.
A “relatively permanent” connection — to be determined on a case-bycase basis — does indeed sound like an exhausting proposition, given the phrase’s ambiguity.
“There’s no compelling reason to change the current law,” Stephen Jeffery said.
Missouri’s current Clean Water Law, on the books since 1972, calls for the protection of “all subsurface waters,” in addition to those on the surface. Pretty easy to understand.
The current law also makes it more difficult for would-be polluters to pollute. That will not be the case, if the phrase “all subsurface waters” was removed from the equation.
If the current law’s not broken, why try to change it?
Sheila Harris is a long-time Barry County resident and a sales executive and investigative reporter for the Cassville Democrat with a particular interest in environmental topics. She may be reached at sheilaharrisads@ gmail.com.
