Submit your testimony against SB 82!
Sample testimony: “I oppose SB 82 because it allows unregulated exportation of Missouri’s water resources through the bottled water exemption, threatening local water availability and prioritizing corporate profits over public interest. The permitting process is overly complex and subject to potential abuse. Missouri’s water should be protected for its citizens, not exploited for out-of-state gain.”
Senate Bill 82 (SB 82), currently under consideration in the Missouri legislature, has passed the Senate and is now being considered in the House. The final version passed out of the Senate no longer creates a new Water Commission. It instead adds authority to the existing State Soil and Water Districts Commission. However, a closer look reveals that the changes made do little to address the significant concerns raised by ACT4MO. With a hearing scheduled in the House Conservation and Natural Resources Committee on Monday, March 31, 2025, it’s critical for concerned Missouri citizens to voice their opposition to this flawed legislation. This article outlines ACT4MO’s original concerns, evaluates how the Perfected version falls short, and provides a simple sample paragraph for submitting online testimony against the bill.
ACT4MO’s Original Concerns with SB 82
ACT4MO identified several key issues with the original version of SB 82, which sought to regulate the exportation of Missouri’s water resources. These concerns included:
Bureaucratic Overreach and Delay: The permitting process was overly complicated, involving multiple steps—such as reviews by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), public comment periods, and commission approval—potentially leading to significant delays.
Political Influence Over Water Rights: The creation of a new Missouri Water Resources Commission, staffed by political appointees, raised fears of partisan bias or gridlock in water permit decisions.
Potential for Arbitrary Restrictions: The bill gave the DNR director and the commission broad discretion to impose conditions or revoke permits based on vague terms like “substantial or material change” or during emergencies, risking inconsistent enforcement.
Unregulated Exportation of Bottled Water: An exemption allowed bottled water companies to extract and export unlimited amounts of Missouri water without permits or oversight.
Threat to Local Beneficial Uses: The bottled water exemption undermined protections for in-state water needs, especially during shortages like droughts.
Profit Over Public Interest: The lack of regulation on bottled water exports favored corporate profits over the welfare of Missouri’s citizens.
These issues painted a picture of a bill that could complicate water management, leave Missouri’s resources vulnerable to exploitation, and prioritize out-of-state interests over local needs.
Changes in the Perfected Version Passed out of the Senate
The Perfected version of SB 82 introduces one primary change: it replaces the proposed Missouri Water Resources Commission with the existing State Soil and Water Districts Commission. This adjustment avoids creating a new politically appointed body, potentially reducing the risk of partisan influence over water rights decisions. However, this is the only significant alteration. The permitting process, discretionary powers, and—crucially—the exemption for bottled water remain unchanged.
Why the Perfected Version Falls Short
While the shift to an existing commission is a step in the right direction, it does not resolve the majority of ACT4MO’s concerns. Here’s how the Perfected version still fails:
1. Bureaucratic Overreach and Delay
The permitting process remains a multi-step ordeal:
A 120-day review by the DNR director.
A 30-day public comment period.
A 60-day window for the director to recommend approval or denial.
A public hearing by the commission within 30 days.
A final commission decision within 30 days of the hearing.
This timeline, stretching up to 270 days, continues to pose a bureaucratic burden that could delay legitimate water use while failing to curb exploitation through the bottled water loophole.
2. Political Influence Over Water Rights
Switching to the State Soil and Water Districts Commission mitigates the concern about a new, politically appointed body. However, this existing commission still wields significant authority over permits, and external pressures could influence its decisions. The change reduces but does not eliminate, the potential for political interference.
3. Potential for Arbitrary Restrictions
The Perfected version retains the discretion of the director and the commission to impose conditions or revoke permits during renewals or emergencies. Terms like “substantial or material change” or impacts on “beneficial use” remain loosely defined, leaving room for subjective or arbitrary enforcement. Clear, objective standards are still lacking.
4. Unregulated Exportation of Bottled Water
The bottled water exemption is unchanged, allowing corporations to extract and export Missouri’s water without permits, volume limits, or oversight. This loophole undermines the bill’s stated purpose of managing water resources responsibly.
5. Threat to Local Beneficial Uses
While the bill prioritizes in-state needs for permitted water uses, this protection does not extend to bottled water exports. In times of scarcity, such as droughts, bottled water companies could deplete local supplies, jeopardizing Missouri’s communities, farmers, and industries.
6. Profit Over Public Interest
The Perfected version still places no reporting requirements or restrictions on bottled water exports. This omission allows corporate interests to profit from Missouri’s water without accountability, directly contradicting the public interest.
A Partial Fix, Not a Solution
The replacement of the Missouri Water Resources Commission with the State Soil and Water Districts Commission addresses one aspect of political influence but leaves the permitting process cumbersome and the bottled water exemption intact. The core problems—bureaucratic inefficiency, discretionary overreach, and corporate exploitation—persist, rendering the Perfected version inadequate.
Why Missourians Should Oppose SB 82
The current version of SB 82, under consideration in the House, does not alleviate the fundamental flaws that ACT4MO highlighted in the original bill. It still risks Missouri’s water security by allowing unregulated bottled water exports, introduces unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, and leaves too much room for abuse in the permitting process. With a hearing looming in the House Conservation and Natural Resources Committee, now is the time for citizens to act. By submitting online testimony, Missourians can urge lawmakers to reject this legislation and protect the state’s water for its people, not out-of-state profits.
Sample Testimony for Opposition
Below is a concise sample paragraph you can use or adapt when submitting your online testimony:
“I oppose SB 82 because it allows unregulated exportation of Missouri’s water resources through the bottled water exemption, threatening local water availability and prioritizing corporate profits over public interest. The permitting process is overly complex and subject to potential abuse. Missouri’s water should be protected for its citizens, not exploited for out-of-state gain.”
How to Submit Testimony
To make your voice heard, submit your testimony online at:
https://witness.house.mo.gov/Default.aspx?noticeid=10591
Your input can help shape the future of Missouri’s water resources.
Conclusion
The current version of SB 82 may tweak the commission structure, but it fails to address the bureaucratic inefficiencies, unchecked corporate exploitation, and threats to local water access that ACT4MO warned about. Missourians deserve legislation that truly safeguards their water, not a bill that leaves it open to abuse. Take action now—submit your testimony and help stop SB 82 in its tracks.