Bill
HB 2389
Missouri HB 2389 bans weather modification and allows DNR civil actions to enforce the prohibition, seeking relief and penalties for violators.
HB 2389 makes it unlawful to use weather modifications and authorizes the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to pursue civil action for violations related to weather modification. The bill aims to prohibit artificial alteration of weather, establish enforcement mechanisms, and provide a judicial remedy for violations.
Prohibition on weather modification: The bill outright bans the use of weather modification techniques. This would cover activities intended to alter atmospheric conditions, such as precipitation, temperature, or other weather-related processes, by human intervention.
Civil enforcement by DNR: The DNR is empowered to bring civil actions against individuals or entities alleged to violate the weather modification prohibition. This creates a state-level enforcement pathway beyond any potential criminal penalties.
Relief and penalties (civil process): While the exact civil remedies are not enumerated in the provided summary, the bill contemplates typical civil action outcomes such as injunctions, civil penalties, and other appropriate relief to ensure compliance and deter violations.
Definitions (as applicable): The bill provides or relies on definitions for terms such as “weather modification” to clarify the scope of prohibited activities. The precise definitions determine what actions fall under the ban.
Individuals and entities engaging in weather modification: Anyone attempting or carrying out weather modification activities would be subject to prohibition and potential civil action.
DNR and state enforcement: The DNR gains explicit authority to file civil lawsuits to enforce the ban, assess penalties, and seek relief against violators.
General public interests: The prohibition is framed as protecting public welfare by preventing potentially disruptive atmospheric interventions and ensuring state oversight and accountability.
Introduction and readings:
Committee referral: Referred to the Emerging Issues (H) committee on May 15, 2026, indicating a focus on novel or significant policy topics.
Sponsors: Co-sponsors include Keith Elliott and Steve Jordan, indicating bipartisan or cross-support involvement.
Regulatory clarity: The bill provides a clear prohibition and an enforcement mechanism, reducing ambiguity about what constitutes unlawful weather modification.
Enforcement scope: Civil actions by the DNR could lead to injunctive relief, penalties, and possibly damages. The absence of explicit penalties in the summary suggests reliance on standard civil enforcement tools available to the DNR.
Economic and operational considerations: If the bill is broad in scope, activities such as cloud seeding or other atmospheric interventions could be restricted, affecting research, agriculture, or weather modification projects that may have legitimate uses—though the bill’s language as summarized here is prohibition-focused.
Legal definitions and exceptions: The effectiveness and reach of the ban depend on how “weather modification” is defined and whether any exemptions (e.g., governmental, emergency response, or weather research) are included in the full text.
If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to highlight potential legal defenses, enforcement procedures, or compare it to existing Missouri statutes on environmental or municipal weather-related limits.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
