House committee hears bill to expand radioactive testing to water and boost funding

House Bill 516, sponsored by Representative Mark Matheson, was the subject of a hearing before the Missouri House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs on 2025-02-01. The bill would expand the existing Radioactive Waste Investigation Fund to allow sampling of water as well as soil and dust, and would raise the potential annual funding level from the fund's original appropriation of $150,000 toward a target of $1 million.

Representative Mark Matheson, sponsor of the bill, told the committee, "This is House Bill 516. I'm Representative Mark Matheson from District 107, which includes Southern O'Fallon, Missouri and Darden Prairie." He described a decade-long concern about radioactive materials associated with Coldwater Creek, the Westlake Landfill, the St. Louis airport site and the Weldon Spring Munitions Site, and said the bill aims to make more testing resources available for communities with contamination concerns. "Because the easiest way to determine there's no problem, the easiest way not to fix the problem is to never test for it," Matheson said.

Why it matters: supporters say more testing, including water sampling, is needed to determine whether contamination has spread beyond known sites and to identify risks to neighborhoods. Matheson said the 2018 law that created the fund focused on soil and dust and that recent studies and community concerns point to groundwater as another probable pathway. He told the committee the original $150,000 estimate dated to 2018 and that contractor and laboratory costs, plus the addition of water testing, persuaded him that a larger appropriation would be required to do thorough work.

Committee members pressed on details and mechanics. Representative Young asked whether the bill removes the prior requirement that a local political subdivision request testing; Matheson said the change was intended to allow community groups and other third parties to petition the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) when local governments do not. Representative Black raised questions about Section 6 and the source of funds, noting language that referenced the hazardous waste fund; Matheson said he did not intend to withdraw $1 million annually solely from the hazardous waste fund and asked for drafting adjustments so that a portion (he cited $150,000) could come from that account and the remainder from general revenue if appropriated.

A witness, Lisa Pinette with Armervine, said she agreed with the bill's intent but listed three concerns: she said the measure "is taking away local control and handing it right over to DNR," that the bill's sampling language permits collection inside homes only with homeowner permission but does not clearly limit sampling outside homes, and that government agencies would face a different legal requirement (a warrant) than private parties. Representative Faulkner and other committee members acknowledged those as points to clarify and suggested working on a committee substitute to address permissions, warrants and local-control questions.

Procedure and status: the hearing consisted of sponsor remarks, committee questions and public testimony; no committee vote or formal action on the bill was recorded at the session's close. Matheson told the committee the measure previously advanced in other committees last year by unanimous or near-unanimous margins but did not present a motion for action during this hearing.

What remains unresolved: the bill's final funding source language (how much may come from the hazardous waste fund versus general revenue), whether sampling on private property outside homes requires explicit permission or warrants, and the mechanism for who may request testing (local political subdivisions versus community groups). Committee members suggested further drafting and potential committee substitution to resolve those items.

Ending: The chair closed the hearing after committee discussion and public testimony; lawmakers indicated they intend to revise statutory language addressing fund reversion and sampling permissions before further committee action.