Environmental Law Blog

Missouri has joined eight other states in suing the Environmental Protection Agency because they believe EPA created a loophole in the federal Clean Water Act that threatens waterways and drinking water.  This new loophole also threatens the Missouri River by making it easier for upstream states to divert water outside the Missouri River basin.  Any water that is pumped outside the Missouri River basin in upstream states will never flow through Missouri.  More than half of all Missourians rely on the River for drinking water.

EPA's "Water Transfer Rule" exempts the transfer of polluted water from one body of water to another. Formerly, a permit was requried for such transfers.  Under the new rule, an entire class of water polluters will be exempt from Clean Water Act permitting requirements.  The new rule allows contaminants to be dumped into drinking water sources, lakes and streams by water transfer operations--without any permit or regulatory oversight by the states.

Transfer operations include an ocean ship dumping salt water into the Great Lakes or a contaminated lake's water being pumped into a pristine river. Water transfers routinely occur throughout the country for irrigation projects, city drinking water, dams and ecological restoration. More often than not, these transfer waters are polluted with various contaminants that are not present in the waters in which the polluted waters are dumped.

Moreover, transfer waters often include invasive species. Invasive, or non-native, species have not evolved alongside native species and are not subject to the same ecological checks and balances as native species. For example, according to the Missouri Department of Conservation, sericea lespedeza, an Asian plant purposefully planted along roadsides in Missouri to prevent erosion, has no natural predators here and spreads aggressively, often displacing native plants.

The lawsuit leading up to the implementation of EPA's Water Transfer Rule marked the first time in EPA's 24-year history that EPA sided with a water polluter in a case. In that case, EPA joined the sugar industry and a water district in defending against claims by Florida Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Everglades and the Miccosukee Tribe that pumping massive quantities of polluted urban and agricultural wastes into Lake Okeechobee violated the Clean Water Act. EPA enacted the Water Transfer Rule on June 9 in an effort to "beat" the federal court's decision.

We'll keep you posted as this lawsuit progresses. In the meantime, do you agree with EPA? Should one be able to dump polluted waters from one water body into a clean water body? Or, is water just water?

Open burning is illegal in Missouri, but many people don't know what it means. Open burning is the burning of any material in which air contaminants are emitted directly into the air without first passing through a stack or chimney, according to the Missouri Air Conservation Law and Regulations.

Some open burning is permitted under the Missouri Air Conservation Law, but much to the surprise of many Missouri residents, most open burning is illegal and subject to a fine of up to $10,000. The open burning of most trade, construction, and demolition waste, as well as petroleum-based products, and waste tires is prohibited because toxins that are released into the atmosphere as a result of the burning activity are harmful to human health.

In fact, studies show that the open burning of a single household's trash could release pollutants in higher levels than the burning of the trash of thousands of homes by a municipal waste incinerator because the lower combustion temperatures of the incinerator are designed to prevent complete incineration. These pollutants can include dioxins, volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride and naphthalene.

As a result, any waste generated by business, trade, industry, salvage or demolition operation cannot be burned without a permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources. Even then, permits will only be issued for untreated wood. Wastes that can never be burned include tires, rubber, hazardous materials, styrofoam, plastic, petroleum-based products, demolition waste, treated wood, and any asbestos containing material.

So, what can you safely burn in Missouri? Missouri allows the open burning of household refuse from four dwelling units or less provided it originates on the same premises. However, this exemption does not apply to mobile home parks or apartment complexes and only includes materials from routine household activities, such as paper waste and food waste. Open burning is allowed, with zoning restrictions, in the Kansas City, St. Joseph, and Springfield metropolitan areas. Open burning is strictly prohibited in the St. Louis metropolitan area.

Missouri also allows the open burning of yard waste provided that the waste originates and is burned on the same premises. Yard waste includes trees, tree leaves, brush or other vegetation. Check with your local city ordinances for time and date restrictions on the open burning of yard waste.

Missouri residents can burn for fire training purposes, agricultural purposes, land clearing operations, wood processing facility operations, and for recreational purposes. However, these permitted fires should not include anything except vegetative woody materials or untreated wood products where possible.

If you aren't sure whether you can burn something without a permit, contact your local fire department or natural resources office. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

Litter is both an eyesore and a health hazard because it attracts diseases, provides a home for pests and serves as a breeding ground for their young. As a result, whether you refer to it as trash, litter, garbage, solid waste, or refuse, litter cannot be dumped onto our private or public land in Missouri.

Three laws make littering a crime in Missouri. First, under the Solid Waste Management Law, no one can dump waste in any place except a licensed solid-waste disposal area.  There are a few exceptions to the general rule that bans dumping.  For example, a homeowner may dump residential waste generated in his home on his own property so long as it does not cause a nuisance.  And a farmer may store solid waste on his property for use in normal farming operations. The Law gives state and local officials the authority to compel an illegal dumper to clean up the unauthorized solid waste disposal area, no matter what the cost. In addition, the violator may face a fine of up to $100.00 per day until the garbage is removed. For more on the Solid Waste Management Law, check out our earlier post on Landfill operations.

Second, the Litter Laws of 1979 make it illegal to throw rubbish of any kind onto any land or water owned by the state or federal government, as well as, the private property of another without his or her consent. Under the Litter Laws, consent is a defense to littering on private property, but anyone dumping refuse onto another person's land is probably violating the Solid Waste Management Law anyway unless the other persons' land is a licensed solid waste disposal facility. Littering is a Class A misdemeanor, so anyone convicted of littering may be imprisoned in the county jail for up to one year and fined up to $1,000.00.

Third, the county commission in each county may choose to use the County Option Dumping Ground Law to further punish litterers. Under this law, individuals who want to operate an open dump in counties that have adopted the law must apply to the county for a license. Anyone who dumps garbage on land that is not licensed may be fined up to $1,000.00 or imprisoned up to one year in the county jail.

In addition to criminal sanctions, persons adversely affected by littering can sue the illegal dumper in civil court for trespass (if the dumping occurred on the person's property) or public or private nuisance (if the dumping occurred on adjacent property).

To report illegal dumping in your area, simply contact your local sheriff's department, highway patrol office, or conservation agent. Have the following information ready to relay to the authorities: description of the violator's vehicle, license number of the vehicle, location of illegal dumping, and description of offenders.  Or, you can submit an online complaint to the Attorney General's Office here.  Let's work together to clean up illegal dumps.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia invalidated a rule issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would have prevented state and locate authorities from supplementing inadequate monitoring requirements for air pollution sources under the Clean Air Act.

The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act compel certain stationary sources of air pollution to obtain permits from state and local authorities that identify all emission limits for the source and also include monitoring requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions. Sometimes, the monitoring requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act itself do not assure compliance with the Clean Air Act's emissions standards. For example, some standards require daily compliance with emissions standards but only call for yearly monitoring.

EPA originally issued a guidance document, and attempted to promulgate a rule, that allowed state and local authorities to "fill the gap" left by the Clean Air Act. In other words, EPA allowed state and local governments, such as the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, to require daily emissions monitoring to assure compliance with Clean Air Act emissions standards.

Industry sued the EPA alleging that the EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act because the Clean Air Act did not expressly provide for emissions monitoring by state and local governments. Rather than fight the litigation, EPA issued an amended rule prohibiting state and local governments from supplementing the Clean Air Act's emission standards.

As soon as the amended rule became final, the Sierra Club sued EPA, arguing that the amended rule violates the Clean Air Act on its face. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia agreed.

In a two-to-one decision, the District Court found that EPA's amended rule was contrary to the statutory directive that each Clean Air Act permit include adequate monitoring requirements. In other words, if the emissions standard required daily compliance, state and local governments must require daily monitoring in order to assure compliance with the daily emissions standard. Yearly monitoring would be inadequate and contrary to the Clean Air Act.

Last month, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) joined forces to uncover the source of suspicious brain tumors found in residents of a local Missouri town.

According to local officials, 11 Cameron residents have been diagnosed with benign brain tumors since 2002, but that number could be three to four times as much, as residents rush to medical professionals for signs of asymptomatic brain tumors.

MDNR, DHSS, and EPA have been working together to collect groundwater, drinking water, and soil samples from land and water reserves in and around the small community located just north of St. Joseph. Officials focused their testing on the land on and around the former Rockwool plant, which closed more than 20 years ago. Rockwool converted iron into fiber insulation for buildings and then dumped the residue from the manufacturing process onto the land surrounding the plant and at a quarry a few miles away.

Thus far, drinking water tests have come back negative for carcinogens, but groundwater and soil samples found on and around the former Rockwool plant site have tested positive for higher-than-normal levels of arsenic and lead. Officials maintain that, although the levels are higher than they would like to see them, they are not hazardous to health. In fact, Cameron's public drinking water facility has passed its drinking water tests for most, if not all, of the past 10 years.

As State and Federal officials struggle to discern the source of the brain tumors in Cameron, citizens are left to speculate about the cause of these benign brain tumors. We'll keep you updated as more information becomes available to us. In the meantime, if you have a similar or completely different environmental compliant, please fill out the Attorney General's environmental complaint form. The link is to your left.

Did you know that every time you clean the bathroom, you are using a cleaning product that may be a Household Hazardous Waste under the Missouri Solid Waste Management and Hazardous Waste Management Laws?

Well, you are! But, don't worry because you probably haven't violated either the Solid Waste or Hazardous Waste Management Laws. Many common household cleaning, painting, gardening, and lawn care products can be dangerous if handled improperly. When you discard these common products, the remaining contents become Household Hazardous Wastes.

Household Hazardous Wastes generated from a single family dwelling can be legally disposed in your trash; however, you should try to dispose of large quantities of Household Hazardous Wastes or especially dangerous Household Hazardous Wastes at a collection event or facility. A list of community collection events throughout Missouri can be found on the Missouri Department of Natural Resource's web site. And, a list of permanent collection sites can be found there as well.

Some common household products are more dangerous than others. These products include used motor oil, waste tires, and lead-acid (car) batteries. Used motor oil and lead-acid batteries must be disposed at a permitted recycling facility. Waste tires must be shredded before landfill disposal, or they can be turned over to an energy recovery operation.

In addition, some forms of common household waste cannot be disposed in a landfill. For example, yard waste cannot be disposed at a landfill and must be deposited at a composting facility. This may seem like a strange exemption, but Missouri does not consider yard waste to be a good use of landfill space due to the large quantities of waste generated by the average household. Household appliances cannot be deposited in a landfill and must be recycled at a scrap yard or appliance repairman.

The most important thing to remember when handling Household Hazardous Wastes is that qualifying products pose a threat to your health and the environment. Please handle -- and disopose of -- them responsibly.

Last week, the Attorney General's Office sued a developer for allowing untreated sewage to discharge into a tributary of Lake Taneycomo, in violation of the Missouri Clean Water Law. Lake Taneycomo is famous across the country for its abundant rainbow and brown trout populations and is located in the Branson area. Since 2002, the Attorney General's Office has prioritized cases involving water pollution in the White River Watershed through its "Zero Tolerance Initiative."

In May 2008, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources discovered that the wastewater treatment facility serving the Damsite Subdivision was discharging untreated sewage to a tributary of Lake Taneycomo. An earlier inspection last November determined that the facility was discharging untreated sewage to the ground. The Department brought the case to the Attorney General's Office last week, and the Office moved swiftly, showing zero tolerance for pollution of the White River.

The lawsuit, filed in Taney County Circuit Court, asks the court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction that would require the Damsite Improvement Association, which owns and operates the wastewater treatment facility serving the Damsite Subdivision, to:

(1) Immediately contain and store the sewage generated by the wastewater system in a tank or other similar device;
(2) Empty the tank as necessary to prevent overflows or discharges;
(3) Convey the sewage to an appropriately permitted wastewater treatment facility for treatment and lawful discharge; and
(4) Continue this process until the current wastewater treatment facility can be upgraded and made fully operational or alternative sewage treatment service can be provided.

Under the Missouri Clean Water Law, untreated sewage qualifies as both a water contaminant and a pollutant. And, a wastewater treatment facility is a point source, or a source of direct pollution into the waters of the State. Thus, each owner and operator of a wastewater treatment facility in Missouri must obtain a Missouri State Operating Permit before s/he can legally operate the facility.

Missouri State Operating Permits are the regulatory equivalents of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits under the federal Clean Water Act. Both permits set the limits for allowable water pollution into the waters of the State. Point sources cannot pollute in excess of the limits set in their Permits, or they are deemed in violation of the Missouri Clean Water Law.

Permits also impose reporting requirements on owners and operators of point sources, like wastewater treatment facilities. For example, owners and operators of wastewater treatment facilities are required to monitor treated wastewater that is discharged into the waters of the State and then report the monitoring results to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. If the reports indicate that the facility has exceeded its allowable pollution limits, then the facility must correct the violation or be sued by the Attorney General's Office.

In the Lake Taneycomo incident, the owners of the wastewater treatment facility failed to meet the pollution limits set by its Missouri State Operating Permit. Recognizing the threat to Missouri's natural resources, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Attorney General's Office took immediate action to eliminate that threat.

The Zero Tolerance Initiative is an example of sector-based enforcement where one targets a particular region or type of pollution for closer scrutiny for an important reason.   Here, we are protecting the White River area which is an important tourism draw that depends on clean water.  Do you have any ideas that could help the AGO further prioritize its enforcement efforts statewide? 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office released its Expert Opinion on the Economics and Policy Options to Address Climate Change to the U.S. Congress (and the public) last May. All of the experts assembled by the GAO agreed that Congress should consider using a market-based mechanism to establish a price for greenhouse gas emissions. Fourteen of the eighteen experts further recommended additional emissions curbing actions to address climate change, such as investment in research and development of low-emissions technologies.

Most experts preferred a basic tax on emissions, but some considered a hybrid market-based option that involves both an emissions tax and a cap-and-trade emissions system. In a cap-and-trade system, companies are assigned a maximum allowable emission rate, or cap. Companies can then "bank" under-cap emissions for future use. Companies also have the option to trade under-cap emissions for a price determined by the market. Experts believe that the emissions trade price should be set somewhere between $1 and $20 until the market stabilizes in order to spur initial participation.

The report indicates that the GAO was particularly concerned about the potential impacts of elevated levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, such as rising sea levels and a shift in the intensity and frequency of floods and storms. The implementation of a market-based mechanism would likely curb these potentially catastrophic effects of global climate change.

On the other hand, the GAO also noted the increase in energy costs that would likely result from the costs of an emissions tax or cap-and-trade system. Altogether, the GAO felt the benefits to the environment outweighed the costs.

In light of the continued controversy surrounding the science and politics of climate change, what effect do you think the GAO's report will have on the average Missourian's opinion about the government's role in preventing climate change?

In our last post, we explored the general framework of the Superfund Law and how historically-contaminated sites get cleaned up by generators, transporters and dumpers of hazardous wastes.  But what about currently-operating sites that suffer a spill of hazardous substances or sites that require immediate clean-up?  And what role is there for the public? 

The Superfund also contains a provision that requires the person with control of a hazardous substance to notify the government if there is a release of certain amounts of contaminants (reportable quantities) into the environment. The federal EPA's work under the Superfund Law was initially funded by a tax on certain industries. That tax has expired, but EPA continues to fund work either using the Fund, or by entering into agreements with responsible parties who then do the clean up work themselves.

While the states do not have all of the authorities provided to EPA under the law, states do have the authority to conduct a site clean up and then recover their costs from the responsible parties. This has proven to be a powerful tool for most states and has resulted in the clean up of a number of sites, including sites in Missouri. Additionally, many states, including Missouri, work with EPA and participate in site clean ups in partnership with the federal government.

Another important goal of the Superfund Law is involving the public in the clean up process. To that end, Congress has provided EPA with funding that allows EPA to help citizens pay or experts in the fields of geology, engineering, toxicology, biology, chemistry and related fields to help people located in or near a contaminated site. EPA and the states also encourage public involvement in the clean up process by assisting local interested members of the public to form Citizen Action Groups. These groups, or CAGs, meet on a regular basis with representatives from EPA and the MDNR, to discuss the status of the clean up efforts and what to expect next. There are CAGs formed at several sites in Missouri, including in the cities of Herculaneum (Herculaneum smelter site) and Neosho (Pools Prairie Superfund Site.) EPA has a website that has information about both the technical assistance grants and forming a CAG. Interested persons should visit both the EPA's website as well as the MDNR's Hazardous Waste Program website.

What other tools should be available in an emergency?  Is the federal Superfund enough to protect the public welfare or should the State have its own "mini-Superfund" law?

In 1976, the United States Congress passed the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA. The RCRA required companies to properly manage and dispose of hazardous wastes generated in production or manufacturing operations at the facility. Initially Congress believed that with the passage of RCRA, the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, it had protected human health and the environment from pollutants and contaminants generated by American business.

However, the discovery of such sites as the Love Canal Site and Missouri's own Times Beach Site revealed that something was missing. In late 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, commonly known as the Superfund Law, to fill in that "hole" in the environmental regulatory universe. The Superfund Law included a number of provisions, but chief among them was the goal of promoting the clean up of sites that had been contaminated by historical site operations, as opposed to preventing future contamination, which is the goal of RCRA. Under the Superfund Law, the federal government had the authority to order clean up of a site, or do the clean up itself and then seek to recover those response costs from liable parties. The parties who could be held liable included not only parties who owned the contaminated property, but also those parties who generated the contaminants (even where the generation had occurred years earlier) and parties who had transported the hazardous substances to the site.

Is it fair to make generators and transporters liable as if they were the dumper?  Would historical contamination ever be fully remediated otherwise?

In our next post, we will look at how Superfund works when there is an ongoing release of a hazardous substance. 

Anticipation over Missouri's potential for concentrated animal feeding operation ("CAFO") regulatory reform has been a source of much controversy amongst Missouri's media professionals. In fact, just last week, the Columbia Tribune posed the question: Which form of regulatory control is better? Local control or state-wide regulation?

Local control offers Missouri citizens the most direct opportunity to regulate the CAFOs allowed into their community. Some contend that more often than not, however, local health ordinances keep CAFOs out of counties where they may be most suited to operate because local residents stand by the "Not in My Back Yard" principle.

On the other hand, local control advocates state that state-wide regulation has proven ineffective in preventing odors and potentially harmful air and water releases. Besides, shouldn't local communities and neighboring landowners have input regarding the operation of confined animal operation?

The recent media attention makes it all the more reasonable to pose the ultimate question to you: Which form of regulation would you prefer? Local or state control? What are the costs and benefits of each?

Rock Port, a small Missouri town of approximately 1,300 residents, just became the first town in the nation to fully support its energy needs with wind energy.

With the help of the University of Missouri's Northwest Extension Office, Rock Port harnessed its high concentration of wind resources to develop a wind energy system suitable for utility-scale wind development. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Northwest Missouri contains a number of locations with potential suitability for wind development.

According to the St. Louis Business Journal, wind farms will bring in more than $1.1 million annually in county real estate taxes, to be paid by Wind Capital Group, a wind energy developer based in St. Louis.

In addition to increased tax revenue, landowners can make money leasing part of their property to Wind Capital Group for the operation of wind turbines. Moreover, electricity from the wind turbines is expected to meet the community's energy needs for the next 15-20 years, without the threat of rate increases.

Rock Port decided to "go green" without any state economic incentive packages. In fact, Missouri does not offer any incentives for individuals or communities to switch to renewable energy resources or adopt greener energy policies.

What do you think would make a good incentive package? Let's brainstorm some realistic incentive packages for Missouri's energy future.

Solid waste can spoil the environment and pose risks to human health unless it is properly managed. The state and most counties and cities have laws and regulations for solid waste management. State law requires permits and engineering controls for operations such as landfills, trash transfer stations, recycling centers and waste tire storage facilities. Operators of such businesses are required to have plans to ensure that the facilities are not causing surface or groundwater contamination, air pollution, or public nuisance. Here are some examples of legal obligations imposed: An operator of an active landfill has to cover exposed trash with soil before the end of each operating day to prevent blowing litter. A closed landfill is required to be covered with a thick cap that has a gentle slope and is covered with grass to prevent erosion and to keep water from passing through the trash and running off into streams and lakes. Waste tires have to be stored in a way that does not allow water to collect and attract mosquitoes because such insects can transmit dangerous diseases.

The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the state solid waste permit programs and conducts regular inspections of facilities. When an operator is not in compliance with the permit or regulations, the Department may ask the Attorney General to file a lawsuit to force the violator to pay penalties and fix the problems caused by the violations.

Leaving solid waste anywhere other than at a permitted facility, or burning it instead of properly disposing of it, is illegal under state law. Violators may be required to pay to civil penalties and to clean it up. In some cases, the violators can face criminal penalties. There are limited exceptions for related to farming and manufacturing operations, and individuals may be allowed to dispose of personal waste from their own residential activities on their own property, so long as they do not create a public nuisance or affect public health. Questions regarding the proper disposal of solid waste can be directed to county or city health departments, solid waste management districts, the Department of Natural Resources, or the Attorney General.

Raw milk and products made with it are those that have not gone through the pasteurization process. Pasteurization kills harmful organisms by heating the milk to a specific temperature for a set length of time.

In addition to bacteria found in raw milk that may cause illness, it also may be contaminated with E. coli, which can produce toxins that cause a condition called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). HUS is a serious, life-threatening complication that can cause severe, bloody diarrhea, injury to the kidneys and kidney failure. Half of all people with HUS-related diarrhea require dialysis, and three to five percent of these people die. Overall, HUS occurs in about 10 percent of those infected with E. coli. This condition can be especially serious in young children, senior adults and people with weakened immune systems.

Raw milk products can also carry Listeria bacteria that put pregnant women and their unborn or newborn children at risk. Listeria can cause miscarriage, fetal death or illness or death of a newborn. These bacteria can also put the unborn baby at risk even if the mother does not feel ill. Additionally, raw milk can also carry bacteria that cause typhoid fever, tuberculosis, diphtheria and brucellosis.

Raw milk products that should be considered unsafe include soft cheeses such as Brie and Camembert, and Mexican-style soft cheeses such as Queso Fresco, Panela, Asadero and Queso Blanco, unless they are made from pasteurized milk. Other products that could be considered unsafe if made from unpasteurized milk include cream, yogurt, pudding, ice cream and frozen yogurt.

Some people believe that consuming raw milk and raw milk products have benefits over consuming pasteurized milk and milk products, like greater nutritional value, vitamins that are present naturally rather than added, and even protection against tooth decay. Research, however, has shown no benefit from raw milk over pasteurized milk.

Section 196.935 says that only pasteurized graded fluid milk and fluid milk products shall be sold to the final consumer (or to restaurants, soda fountains, grocery stores, or similar establishments) except that an individual may purchase and have delivered to him for his own use raw milk or cream from a farm.

The Soil and Water Conservation Program is a state-funded incentive program designed for the purpose of saving soil and water throughout the state through erosion abatement and sediment control on agricultural lands. In 1984, voters passed and continue to approve a 1/10 of 1% soil and water conservation and parks tax to fund state parks and to conserve soil on Missouri's agricultural lands. The cost-share program is intended to provide financial incentives to landowners to install erosion control practices that they would not otherwise install.

The Soil and Water Districts Commission sets all rules and policies governing the state cost-share program and reviews them as needed or as requested by local soil and water conservation districts. Funds authorized for cost-share assistance on erosion control practices, incentives or demonstration practices are allocated to local soil and water conservation districts. Annually, the commission approves a list of eligible cost-share practices that may be implemented by the local soil and water conservation district. During the annual review of the eligible practice list, the commission considers the current use of each practice and the relative needs for the practice.

Each locally elected soil and water conservation district board of supervisors is given the authority to manage the district's cost-share program within the rules and policies that govern the cost-share program. The district can only utilize those practices approved by the commission.

Landowner claims for cost-share can be denied when they do not comply with program rules. The commission will either approve or deny a claim for cost-share if it is alleged that the practice does not comply with the program rules. A landowner must agree to maintain the practice as approved for a period of years, usually 5 or 10. If the landowner alters or fails to maintain the practice, the district may demand a pro-rata return of the state's cost-share monies.

The Soil and Water Conservation Districts Commission also oversees the Agricultural Non-point Source Special Area Land Treatment Program (AGNPS SALT). The SALT Program addresses soil erosion and reduces or prevents agricultural non-point source pollution in targeted watersheds. Types of agricultural non-point source pollution include soil erosion, excessive nutrient loading from animal waste runoff, nutrient and chemical loading from crop areas, and increased nutrients and chemicals in water supplies caused by improper animal waste management.

Local soil and water conservation districts identify watersheds with existing water quality problems and apply for AGNPS SALT projects from the Soil and Water Districts Commission. The Soil and Water Districts Commissions decides which proposal will be approved as AGNPS SALT projects.

The Soil and Water Conservation Program also updates Missouri soil surveys and provides detailed maps of the different soils throughout the state. Soil scientists also provide soil assistance to landowners and other agencies to effectively make proper soil resource decisions.

The Attorney General provides legal counsel to the Commission and represents it in litigation. Questions concerning practices eligible for state cost-share can be directed to the local district office or the Department of Natural Resources.

Is this program a priority for Missouri in the 21st Century? Should Missouri continue to actively promote soil conservation, or should we focus on other objectives and allow federal regulators to handle these issues?