HB 1917: Public Water Supply Districts
Sponsor: David Casteel
OPPOSE
Unconstitutional Special Law
HB 1917 adds two new sections to chapter 247 for public water supply districts. It (1) creates an “expedited detachment” process so landowners can pull unserved, uninhabited land out of certain districts through the courts, and (2) forces those same districts to accept gifts and donations that must be applied first to pay off federal debt, with public record-keeping. Both ideas, in isolation, have some merit—property-owner relief and paying down federal debt. But the bill is drafted as a narrow, frozen-in-time carve-out for a single, specially described county, and it bundles two distinct policy schemes under one broad, catch-all title. That combination creates a serious special-law concern and brushes right up against Missouri’s single-subject protections.
What Does This Bill Do?
- Expedited Detachment: Creates a process for landowners to detach unserved, uninhabited land from water districts via circuit court petition.
- Federal Debt Payoff: Mandates that accepted gifts and donations be applied first to pay off federal debt held by the district.
- Special Geographic Limits: Restricts these rules to districts in a specific charter county, creating a "frozen class" that excludes others similarly situated.
Constitutional or Critical Context
The title (“relating to public water supply districts”) is extremely broad, and the bill marries two distinct policies—territory detachment and federal-debt gift rules—into one package. They share the same topic, but function as separate subjects that could easily have been separate bills. Furthermore, the bill is limited to districts in any county with a charter form of government, at least two water districts “in existence on August 28, 2026,” and adjacency to a county that adjoins an independent city. This is classic geocoding with a frozen class, designed to capture one county and lock everyone else out.
Red Flags & Recommended Amendments
Likely Special Law (Frozen Class)
The bill uses specific geographic criteria (charter county, adjacent to independent city, district count in 2026) to target one specific county, likely violating the prohibition on special laws.
Bundled Subjects
Combines two distinct policy schemes (boundary changes and financial gift rules) under a broad title, skirting single-subject protections.
Act for Missouri Recommendation:
Even though HB 1917 contains some good policy ideas—relief for unserved landowners, encouragement to pay down federal debt, and stronger transparency—those positives are packaged inside what appears to be a special-law framework with a bundled-subject structure that pushes hard against Missouri’s single-subject protections. Under Act for Missouri’s standard, a bill must be clearly constitutional and clearly protective of liberty; if there is a serious structural or constitutional problem, we do not trade that away for a handful of benefits. For that reason, Act for Missouri should oppose HB 1917.