Bill
HB 1619
Requires DNR to devote at least 10% of Rock Island Trail development funds to address adjacent landowner concerns (fencing, drainage, signage, safety, etc.).
Status & sponsors
- Bill: HB 1619 (adds Section 253.178 to Chapter 253, RSMo)
- Primary sponsors: Rep. Gramlich and Sen. Irvin
- Filed: December 13, 2024 (prefiled); read first time March 12, 2025; referred to the Transportation Committee.
- Jurisdiction: Missouri (text amends Missouri Revised Statutes)
Purpose / intent
- To require the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to allocate a minimum share of any funds appropriated for the development of the Rock Island Trail State Park to mitigate or resolve concerns of adjacent landowners. The aim is to address impacts that trail development can have on neighboring agricultural and private properties.
Key provisions
- New statutory section (253.178, RSMo):
- Mandates that DNR "shall use not less than ten percent" of any state or federal moneys appropriated for the development of the Rock Island Trail State Park to address adjacent landowner concerns.
- Lists example eligible concerns: agricultural fencing, agricultural crossings, drainage, signage, safety, and security.
- The requirement is expressed as mandatory (“shall”) and applies to both state and federal appropriations made for the park’s development.
Who/what is affected
- Department of Natural Resources: required to reserve and spend at least 10% of applicable appropriations on adjacent landowner issues when administering development funds for the Rock Island Trail State Park.
- Rock Island Trail State Park projects: at least 10% of project development funds will be directed to mitigation measures for adjacent landowners.
- Adjacent landowners and agricultural operations: potential recipients/beneficiaries of fencing, crossing improvements, drainage remediation, signage, safety/security measures, etc.
- Other park development activities and contractors: up to (or at least) 10% of available development funding will be used for mitigation rather than other development purposes.
Budgetary / implementation notes
- The bill sets a percentage requirement (10%) but does not specify procedures for: identifying eligible claims, application or reimbursement processes, criteria for spending priorities, or program administration details. Those implementation mechanics would be left to DNR rules, guidance, or future appropriation language.
- The statute references both state and federal moneys. Use of federal funds may be constrained by federal grant rules; DNR would need to ensure any set‑aside is consistent with federal requirements.
- No dollar amounts are specified in the bill; the fiscal impact depends on the size of future appropriations for the park.
Potential impacts / considerations
- Benefits: Provides a guaranteed funding stream for landowner mitigation, which could improve relationships between the park and adjacent property owners and reduce conflicts (e.g., trespass, livestock escapes, drainage disputes).
- Trade-offs: Redirecting at least 10% of development funds toward mitigation reduces the share available for other development activities (trail construction, amenities, habitat work).
- Administrative: DNR will need clear policies and likely coordination with county/agricultural authorities to determine eligible uses and to administer funds efficiently and equitably.
Effective date
- The bill text does not specify a delayed effective date; the requirement would take effect according to normal statute enactment rules once the bill becomes law.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
