[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6100338,"mediaKeyId","2813654-b21bbf4f75649b08874915f5a2b1180c","parentId",2813654,"title","Bill to shield names of major agricultural water users draws sharp debate over transparency","audioSeconds",2209,"startMs",2311000,"endMs",4520000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813654-b21bbf4f75649b08874915f5a2b1180c&start=2311&end=4520","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813654-b21bbf4f75649b08874915f5a2b1180c/thumbnail_2311000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6100338/Missouri/Bill-to-shield-names-of-major-agricultural-water-users-draws-sharp-debate-over-transparency","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100338-81b926fa915056e78cefaf6993901cc0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155733&Signature=ZBFcj09784U~azKAIzU1Din1dXtXXhhqLzSTiUdaKHWw2h97YYakR1d8yrzSecel1~XbQ4DjCu-N~dwSNwiOCnTaFmRCCLyxiEUo5rHROSXl~MwONduLl3mYJbxvNdN8VCmpqZBWeZL0xhelStN8XCHpkcmbLaMgo98zCJj010IymO4xqrlBilupa1bqcbADmyARJum4iShW98xpV2A2QjY4LS6BC5PvFnp3ITK0WGmd1iw9v2gkTmdugydX9k01bXnExVZA7elb3pAj4lOTxsnc-yilVVx-NJRGzq2y1w-TYlr~he5KO6GLz67an1t0onY0ymNW5zXxVSnPl8Qw~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Missouri Legislature","date","2025-03-24T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Dane Deel (District 125) told the House Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources that House Bill 5-45 seeks to protect farmers’ personal information while improving reporting participation for large agricultural water users. The bill would make a filer’s name, mailing address and contact information confidential for major agricultural water users while preserving aggregate and well-location data, according to sponsor remarks in committee.

Deel said the change is intended to increase producer participation in reporting so that regulators and policymakers can get better aggregate data on water use. He told the committee that current reporting exists but that some producers decline to submit data because they do not want personal information publicly available. Representatives of Missouri Soybean, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Corn Growers and other agriculture groups testified in support, saying the bill would protect farm families’ privacy while encouraging fuller reporting.

Opponents argued the amendment would weaken Missouri’s Sunshine Law and undermine public oversight of a scarce public resource. Chad Stebbins of the Missouri Press Association told the committee: “We believe it erodes Missouri's sunshine law by making important and legitimate public information a secret,” and argued that “the public has a right to know who the major water users are.” Melissa Vatterat of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment and Liberty Link Missouri’s president offered similar objections, saying neighbors and regulators need access to identify and respond to local water impacts.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on details. Representative Burton and others asked whether the change would reduce transparency needed during droughts. The sponsor replied that aggregate county-level totals and well locations would remain available and that the bill targets only the user’s personal contact information. Representative Washmore and other members asked whether the bill scope applies only to agriculture; the sponsor said the committee intends to match language that focuses the confidentiality change on agricultural users.

Supporters said the bill would encourage reporting by producers who fear harassment or unwanted publicity. A representative of community lenders and agriculture organizations said growers told them they would not report because of privacy concerns. A Missouri Farm Bureau witness said the bill is a “step in the right direction” to protect farmers’ personal information.

Opponents warned that the bill could also protect large nonagricultural users, such as data centers, if the language is not carefully limited; the press association witness noted an average data center’s water use figure and suggested the public interest in water transparency extends beyond farms.

No committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Committee members requested final statutory language and clarifications on whether entity names (LLCs) would be treated differently from individual farm owners and asked staff to refine the bill text to ensure it targets the intended subjects without unduly limiting public access.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Conservation and Natural Resources Monday, Mar 24, 2025 1:00 PM - 2:32 PM","oneSentenceSummary","A bill that would remove personal names, mailing addresses and contact information for major agricultural water users from public records drew support from farm groups and opposition from media and environmental advocates who said it would erode sunshine law and hamper drought response.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MO, Missouri","taxId",77693,"location","Missouri","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6100342,"Soil Erosion Control Fund bill aims to help HOAs and communities pay for bank stabilization, committee hears",465,668000,1133000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813654-b21bbf4f75649b08874915f5a2b1180c&start=668&end=1133","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813654-b21bbf4f75649b08874915f5a2b1180c/thumbnail_668000.jpg","/articles/6100342/Missouri/Soil-Erosion-Control-Fund-bill-aims-to-help-HOAs-and-communities-pay-for-bank-stabilization-committee-hears","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100342-8a30ed6068522f8a292af3030dc143e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155733&Signature=hTevNrrb11D6tHQ8gxPCgdSyATh7qd6Sv6dWmQxjbpNapvXM01HO9YJVNRzbUIWISXnhyL7Vxz6O3NLaZAXrUIBt5NtCIXJ0RG92y5JXwBFP71IlLAW~lIlrXcuyFfy4etlRt9lLFrjiBhY2PeUeu0LKqNlyANwEQprW4FD6805-hmuOdQvhzLejZ17a5lAkQ8csc~HcOCtzlKsyHQHGXIE1un8~qVNuMsDnpWW6V2n0fAU8zOstbJWrOIci7QSFVMvQXwX34sAAW39-qEWshJbXIU4nfx-in3KO-MfTPef9yFeps0uTb4nojqvADf4RLxJKMBTOC-MOjokkqMTuiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Colin Wellenkamp (105th District, St. Charles City) told the House Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources that erosion is an increasing cost to homeowners and local infrastructure and asked the panel to report House Bill 14-61, the “Soil Erosion Control Fund Act,” favorably.

Wellenkamp said erosion currently costs the nation tens of billions annually and that urban and suburban neighborhoods are now seeing acute erosion after increased extreme rain events. The bill would create a department-administered fund to provide loans and assistance to homeowners associations incorporated as nonprofits for bank stabilization and other erosion-control projects. The sponsor said plans would be reviewed by the department; natural infrastructure solutions would be prioritized before larger structural fixes.

The bill includes a cap on program interest rates to keep loans within “municipal bond territory.” Wellenkamp said he discussed terms with banks and set a maximum interest limit of 3.5 percent to make loans affordable for HOAs. He described the fund as intended to create a revolving loan program in which repayments would be available for future projects and said loans would be governed by existing state fiscal statutes.

Committee members raised implementation and equity questions. Representative Burton asked whether unincorporated neighborhoods could access the program; Wellenkamp replied that HOAs could incorporate as nonprofits to qualify and that incorporation provides a mechanism for fiscal accountability. Members pressed the sponsor on enforcement, collateral and how smaller HOAs would obtain loans; witnesses said private-bank loans often run 6.25 to 6.5 percent and that many small HOAs lack access to conventional lending.

Support testimony came from community-association services and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. A representative of a community-association lender said banks typically offer fixed-rate loans “anywhere from 6 and a quarter to 6 and a half percent for terms of 5, 7, 10, and sometimes 15 years,” and said the bill would create another financing option for small HOAs that otherwise cannot obtain loans. Melissa Vatterat of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment backed the bill and said it would help protect property values, water quality and soil health in residential developments.

Members and witnesses discussed program details: eligible project types, prioritization of natural solutions (grass, trees) over impermeable structures, possible use of riprap in combination with vegetative measures, and the department’s role in approving plans. Committee members asked for clarity on loan terms, collateral and the mechanics of HOA assessments; the sponsor said loan repayment mechanics could include liens and that program design requires HOA incorporation, quorum, bylaws and other governance safeguards.

No committee vote was recorded on the Soil Erosion Control Fund Act during the hearing; the item remained in committee pending further consideration and possible drafting changes requested by members.","Representative Colin Wellenkamp presented the Soil Erosion Control Fund Act to allow incorporated homeowners associations to apply for department-approved loans to fund erosion and sedimentation projects; committee members discussed loan terms, HOA governance, collateral and program safeguards.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6100347,"Committee adopts substitute to add aerosol paint cans to paint stewardship program",0,2532000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2813654-b21bbf4f75649b08874915f5a2b1180c&start=2532&end=2532","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2813654-b21bbf4f75649b08874915f5a2b1180c/thumbnail_2532000.jpg","/articles/6100347/Missouri/Committee-adopts-substitute-to-add-aerosol-paint-cans-to-paint-stewardship-program","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100347-e4612fae41275b8f412f91d5c1227ca1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771155733&Signature=TxIUniK2w3GRl4T~KkRGCJU4ZiLPliItguWAZi4~5pqRY8efdn5KoonpvzMO8MXnudphwAy3DRsIIS4f2YkyrJ7Zkp2oQwMz2pcS8Jsk~bxs25t3ZpHLQ24Z4mgXxD5ORiHWFVsh0fZud~5mvVniFLHXlergT-QgTkHmW27h3srX2op6cvd-BnsXgGXni1n3W9Sm4oTLq0anh4O2NyjGeb9P4Y7Hu3PVYoIOUvLJLuTAYWPOmLwFx2UI6nLtYYOCacv~qC1u6HsYgeuk7GpxmDjrjjuLb-bTlfzoysDlvsdnPI3SN-PW48ruOgn10b3v2ymJR72aoH4Cjwv4liUIhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources on Wednesday adopted a substitute to a paint stewardship bill that adds aerosol-containing paint cans to the list of products that may be included in an annual, department-approved paint stewardship program.

Committee Chair Farnon moved adoption of the substitute and then moved that the House Committee substitute for House Bill 12-16 be voted “do pass.” After brief questions about the scope and fees associated with adding aerosol cans, the committee adopted the substitute and later voted the committee substitute out of committee by a recorded tally.

The substitute adds language allowing aerosol paint cans to be included in the manufacturers’ annual program plan, subject to approval by the department. A committee member asked where the cans would be recycled and what fees users would pay. Michael Gibbons, representing the American Coatings Association, told the committee that while he did not know the exact fee, “the cost typically for a gallon is under a dollar. And so it'll be something less than that.” He described the recycling process for pressurized cans: “You had to have a device that punctures it because of the pressure under it and then smush it and then they can go off and recycle it.”

Representative Jordan asked for clarification on whether the cans would be recycled or reused; a committee witness replied, “That that's my understanding, yes.” Representative Taylor and others pressed for more information about potential fees and the transportation costs to specialized recycling facilities. One committee member said he was “troubled” by the uncertainties and wanted more concrete cost data before passing the bill.

Supporters of the change said the amendment was intended to give the department regulatory flexibility so it would not need to return to the Legislature to add new paint product types later. A sponsor described the addition as an accommodation after follow-up discussions and discovery that aerosol-containing household-type paint cans can be recycled in limited locations.

Votes at a glance: the committee adopted the substitute and later voted the committee substitute out of committee. The committee reported the substitute favorably by a tally of 9 ayes and 3 noes (substitute adoption noted in committee; final committee passage recorded in the hearing record). The committee then proceeded to public testimony on the next bill.

The bill text delegates to the department the authority to approve manufacturer program plans and to propose additional paint products for inclusion in future plans. The committee discussion made clear that the department will be responsible for any fee structure and for approving logistics such as transport and handling; committee members repeatedly asked the department and industry witnesses to provide more detail on projected fees and where cans would be processed.

The committee did not record a departmental cost estimate or a specific per-can fee during the hearing. Members requested that staff or witnesses provide follow-up information on likely per-can fees and the identity or location of recycling facilities before further floor action.

A final vote to report the substitute to the full House was recorded in committee minutes (tally reported to the committee).","The House Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources approved a committee substitute to expand a paint stewardship program to explicitly allow aerosol-containing paint cans to be included in manufacturer-run recycling plans; members questioned cost, logistics and how fees would be set.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to shield names of major agricultural water users draws sharp debate over transparency

Soil Erosion Control Fund bill aims to help HOAs and communities pay for bank stabilization, committee hears

Committee adopts substitute to add aerosol paint cans to paint stewardship program