Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee tables bill that would limit state cleanup orders for certain Johnson County properties
Summary
Senators voted to table House Bill 23-40 after debate over liability, legal uncertainty about federal hazardous-waste law and an offer from proponents to consider deed restrictions; tabling reflects unresolved legal and factual questions.
Get email alerts on the Environmental Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Commerce Committee voted to table House Bill 23-40 on Feb. 20 after members raised legal and factual uncertainties about whether state cleanup authority should be limited for certain former U.S. Army properties in Johnson County.
Committee staff described the bill as a measure that would prohibit state agencies from issuing cleanup orders or seeking cost recovery for property formerly owned by the U.S. Army in Johnson County where registered pesticidal commercial chemical products were applied to or near structures before February 2005. The exemption would apply retroactively while the property remained nonresidential and would lapse if the property were later used for residential purposes.
Senator Titus, who moved to table the bill, said the committee lacked sufficient factual and legal clarity to make a legislative decision. He flagged a core legal question about whether the pesticide residues at issue fall under federal hazardous-waste law and whether the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) would apply. "I believe removing someone's liability under RCRA is a major change to our environmental and solid waste laws," Titus said, and argued the subject may be better suited for the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and for further briefing.
The committee record shows proponents indicated property owners might accept deed restrictions as a voluntary mechanism to address reuse concerns, but an amendment to effect that change had not been drafted during the hearing. A proponent asked to delay consideration so the amendment could be developed; Senator Titus pressed for a tabling motion instead, which the committee carried by voice vote.
Ending: With the motion to table approved, HB 23-40 was not advanced; the record shows outstanding legal questions about statutory liability and an unfinalized proposal to use deed restrictions as an alternative to statutory immunity.

