COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0251S.03C Bill No.:SCS for SB 82 Subject:Environmental Protection; Department of Natural Resources; Lakes, Rivers and
Waterways; Attorney General; Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Councils
Type:Original Date:February 20, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal creates provisions relating to water resources.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue*($797,025)($313,713)($318,941)Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue($797,025)($313,713)($318,941)
*Oversight notes that the effect on General Revenue is due to the 3 FTE requested by the
Department of Natural Resources for water exportation permits. In addition, costs for per diem
and milage reimbursement of House and Senate Members for the Water Resource Commission.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 2 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue 3 FTE3 FTE3 FTETotal Estimated Net
Effect on FTE3 FTE3 FTE3 FTE
☒ Estimated Net Effect (expenditures or reduced revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any
of the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
☐ Estimated Net Effect (savings or increased revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any of
the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Local Government$0$0$0 L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 3 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§§640.406 and 640.408 – Water Preservation
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) assume the following regarding
this proposal:
Sections 640.406.3, 640.406.4, 640.406.5, 640.406.6, 640.406.9, 640.406.11, and 640.406.12
This legislation proposes to create a permitting program for water exportation under the authority
of a newly created water resources commission. To estimate the fiscal impact of the proposal the
department has assumed that 10 new permits would be issued each year through the process
outlined in the proposal.
The permitting technical work in preparation of a recommendation from the department to the
commission would be conducted by the Water Resources Center (WRC) in the Missouri
Geological Survey (MGS). Existing WRC managers will supervise these permitting, technical,
administrative and data management activities.
The WRC program would require 1.0 FTE to conduct the permitting technical work, which
includes conducting analysis of current and future uses to be impacted, drafting conditions and
provisions where necessary to prohibit impact to current and future uses as applicable, drafting
the recommended decision, and drafting the statement of basis for the decision. Additional duties
would also include technical work associated with any major water user export permit
reevaluation request filed with the department.
Further, to implement the legislation by informing permitting decisions, reporting quarterly to
the commission, tracking water reporting of annual withdrawal from exempt water exporters, and
evaluate the state’s water resources beneficial uses; a database/permit submission/major water
user re-evaluation request tracking system will need to be built and maintained by the state. This
would include initial development costs of around $500,000 and an MGS-WRC data
manager/technical expert at 1.0 FTE to track and manage data related to all facets of water use in
MO and to evaluate necessary export permit decisions because of a drought emergency. This
data management work would consolidate and display existing water data usage information
from other sources such as major water users and public drinking water as well as create new
data categories for other beneficial uses.
This will facilitate better understanding and analysis of the data to be used during the initial
permitting and 3-year renewal process as well as quarterly reports to the commission. The
processing of the permitting decision administratively includes public notice of draft permits,
entering data, processing letters, and facilitating approvals of department management. L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 4 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
Notification of reporting requirements to exempt exporters and permitting notifications to the
county commission are additional administrative duties to be conducted. Additional
administrative work required by this proposed legislation would include commission admin
support, meeting scheduling, travel logistics, expense processing for commissioners, and other
administrative duties. The WRC would require 1.0 FTE to complete the administrative duties for
this proposed legislation.
DNR notes the following:
1. The public cost estimates are in current year dollars.
2. Projection Assumptions:
• To estimate the fiscal impact of the proposal the department has assumed that 10 new
permits would be issued each year through the process outlined in the proposal.
• FY 26 reflected as earliest potential effective date of rule
• Amount realistically reflects planned expenditures (ie, entry-level salary range):
• 2 FTE at $57,768 annually reflects salary for Environmental Program Assistant/Analyst
role.
• 1 FTE at $52,680 annually reflects salary for Admin role.
• Salary adjusted to reflect 10 months (*10/12) in accordance with an effective date of
August 28.
• When calculating salaries, an inflationary factor of 1.0% is applied to the 2nd and 3rd
fiscal years.
3. Rulemaking has the potential to result in additional economic impacts that are unknown at this
time.
4. Anticipated duties of the Environmental Program Analyst include: developing and reviewing
administrative rules; improving permit processing efficiency, timely issuance of permits, and
maintaining the accuracy and quality of permit related data in state and federal systems used to
track permitting actions, generate reports, and monitor state and federal performance metrics and
goals; coordinate and participate in public meetings, including present information to and gather
feedback from stakeholders, permittees, and the general public on matters relating to water
exportation permits and applicable state regulations; coordinate with internal units, sections,
programs, and regional offices of the Department as well as external private, state, and federal
agencies
Upon further inquiry, the Department of Natural Resources - Missouri Geological Survey
(MGS) notes that this version of the proposal creates the Water Resources Commission
§640.408 to approve the permitting though the MGS and the Department of Environmental
Quality is not involved. L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 5 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources - Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) state that there is no fiscal impact for the Water Protection Program as the
proposed legislation now references the Missouri Water Resources Commission
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimated impact by DNR in the fiscal note.
Officials from the Missouri Senate (SEN) anticipates a negative fiscal impact to reimburse 2
Senators for travel and per diem to attend Missouri Water Resources commission meetings. In
summary, it will cost approximately $2,475.40 per year if the commission meets quarterly.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimated impact by the Senate in the fiscal note.
Officials from the Missouri House of Representatives (MHR) assume this proposal creates the
Water Resource Commission which appoints 2 of their members and who are entitled to mileage
and per diem. MHR estimates a total impact of $2,527.80 of General Revenue for the members
per diem and mileage for serving on the Water Resource Commission.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect the
estimated impact by the MHR in the fiscal note.
Officials from the Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Department of
AgricultureOffice of the Governor each assume the proposal will have no fiscal
impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
In response to similar legislation, SB 29 (2025), officials from the Office of Attorney General
(AGO) assumed any potential litigation costs arising from this proposal can be absorbed with
existing resources. However, the AGO may seek additional appropriations if the proposal results
in a significant increase in litigation or investigation.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight assumes the
AGO will be able to perform any additional duties required by this proposal with current staff
and resources and will reflect no fiscal impact to the AGO for fiscal note purposes.
Officials from the South River Drainage District, Wayne County Public Water Supply
District #2, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, Morgan County Public Water Supply
District #2, and the City of O’Fallon each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on
their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary.
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies. L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 6 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
Officials from the City of Kansas City assume the legislation has no fiscal impact as long as the
city is not required to build any infrastructure to export water. The city recommends that any
infrastructure costs to export water should be the responsibility of the permit holder.
The city also has an emergency inter-connect agreement with BPU in Kansas where the city can
supply them with water, and vice versa, in times of extreme shortage. The city is still concerned
that the bill would require BPU, or any Kansas entity that may wish to export water from the city
in emergency cases, to have to apply for a permit.
In response to a previous version, officials from the St. Charles County Public Water Supply
District #2 assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other water supply districts and local political subdivisions were requested to respond
to this proposed legislation but did not. A listing of political subdivisions included in the
Missouri Legislative Information System (MOLIS) database is available upon request.
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028GENERAL REVENUE FUNDCosts - DNR Personnel Service($140,180)($171,580)($175,012) Fringe Benefits($95,664)($116,145)($117,521) Expense & Equipment($56,178)($20,985)($21,405)Total Costs - DNR($292,022)($308,710)($313,938)FTE Change3 FTE3 FTE3 FTECost – DNR/ITSD – initial
development costs ($500,000)$0$0
Cost – House §640.408
mileage reimbursement & per diem p. 4($2,528)($2,528)($2,528)
Cost – Senate §640.408
mileage reimbursement & per diem p. 5($2,475)($2,475)($2,475)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND($797,025)($313,713)($318,941)
Estimated Net FTE Change on the
General Revenue Fund3 FTE3 FTE3 FTE L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 7 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028$0$0$0
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
The act creates provisions relating to water resources.
Under the act, it shall be unlawful for any person to export water resources outside the state
unless the person holds a water exportation permit issued by the Department of Natural
Resources, subject to certain exemptions as described in the act.
The Director of the Department shall review each water exportation permit application and all
supporting documents to ensure the required conditions have been met prior to accepting a water
exportation application for public comment and review by the Missouri Water Resources
Commission. The required conditions are described in the act.
Within 120 days after receipt of a complete application, the Director shall determine whether the
applicant complied with the conditions under the act. After making such a determination, the
Director shall hold a 30-day public comment period regarding the determination. Within 60 days
after the comment period, the Director shall recommend approval or denial of the permit. The
recommendation and public comments shall be submitted to the Commission. The Commission
shall make the final decision as to the approval or denial of the permit as described in the act.
To renew a water exportation permit, an applicant shall file a renewal application with the
Department as described in the act. The process for reviewing the renewal application is
described in the act.
In the absence of an appeal, the decision of the Commission shall be final.
A water exportation permit shall be in effect for three years after the date of issuance. The permit
holder shall annually report the water use volumes and withdrawal rates to the Department.
The water exportation permit application shall include all water exportation requested by the
applicant. The water exportation permit may be approved by the Director or the Commission. An
applicant may include multiple water withdrawals for export from various locations within one
water exportation permit application. L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 8 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
A water exportation permit application shall include a designee or agent in the state for service of
process and to receive other notices.
A major water user may request the Department to reevaluate any existing water exportation
permit using the criteria under the act. The Department shall create a mechanism for a major
water user to submit a request for reevaluation of the permit as described in the act.
The act shall not preclude a person from bringing any claim to defend the person's water rights.
A permit shall not serve as a defense to any claim brought against a water permit holder for the
infringement of water rights.
If the Attorney General receives a complaint for violations of the act, or at the request of the
Department, the Attorney General shall bring a civil action. Suit may be brought in any county
where the defendant's principal place of business is located or where the withdrawal of water
occurred in violation of the act.
Whenever a state of emergency is declared by the Governor in any part of the state based on
drought conditions, the Department shall reevaluate any existing water exportation permit as
described in the act.
The act creates the "Missouri Water Resources Commission". Membership requirements,
compensation, and duties of the Commission are described in the act.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not
require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Conservation
Office of the Governor
Missouri House of Representatives
Missouri Senate
Attorney General’s Office
City of Kansas City
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District L.R. No. 0251S.03C
Bill No. SCS for SB 82
Page 9 of
February 20, 2025
MR:LR:OD
South River Drainage District
St. Charles County Public Water Supply District #2
Wayne County Public Water Supply District #2
Morgan County Public Water Supply District #2
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorFebruary 20, 2025February 20, 2025