Kansas House Bill HB2340

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/7/25
• Refer: 2/7/25
• Report Pass: 2/18/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 3/27/25
• Refer: 1/27/26

Caption

Providing for an exemption from remediation costs or other liability from prior commercial pesticide application by the United States army for owners of certain property located in Johnson county.

Summary

HB 2340 amends Kansas hazardous materials law to create a specific exemption for certain property in Johnson County that was formerly owned by the United States Army. Under the bill, state agencies and subdivisions would be barred from issuing cleanup orders, seeking cost recovery, or adopting regulations or guidance that would make current owners or possessors of that property responsible for investigation, removal, remediation, or land-use restrictions tied to legally registered pesticidal commercial chemical products applied by the Army at or near structures before 2005. The bill states that this exemption is intended to apply retroactively. The measure also amends the existing hazardous substance cleanup statutes, K.S.A. 65-3453 and 65-3455, by inserting the Johnson County exemption into the general framework that otherwise allows the secretary of health and environment to order cleanup, enter property, recover costs from responsible parties, and use the environmental response fund. In practical terms, the bill preserves the state’s general cleanup authority while carving out a narrow exception for a defined category of contaminated property and shifting those costs away from affected owners. The bill appears to have been framed as a targeted liability relief measure for property owners affected by historic pesticide use on former Army land. Its House final action passed 94-29, indicating substantial support but also meaningful opposition. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the bill was viewed favorably by a majority while still raising concerns for a significant minority. The main point of contention is the breadth and retroactive nature of the exemption. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a fairness measure that prevents current owners from being held responsible for contamination caused by federal military activity decades earlier. Opponents likely objected to limiting state cleanup authority, potentially reducing environmental accountability, and creating a special carve-out for a particular property or locality. The bill’s narrow geographic focus on Johnson County and its retroactive application are the most notable features driving that debate.

Impact

HB 2340 would amend Kansas’s hazardous substance cleanup statutes by creating a statutory exception to state cleanup and cost-recovery authority for certain former U.S. Army property in Johnson County. It would prevent state agencies from imposing remediation obligations, land-use restrictions, or related liability on current owners or possessors for pesticide-related contamination tied to commercial chemical products applied before 2005, while leaving the broader hazardous materials enforcement framework in place for other sites. The bill also repeals and replaces the existing sections of K.S.A. 65-3453 and 65-3455 to incorporate that exemption.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had generally favorable support in the House, as reflected by its 94-29 passage on final action. The available record suggests the measure was treated as a targeted relief bill for affected property owners rather than a broad environmental policy change. At the same time, the size of the opposing vote indicates notable reservations, likely centered on environmental liability, precedent for special exemptions, and the retroactive removal of cleanup responsibility.

Contention

The central controversy is whether the state should relieve current owners of former Army property in Johnson County from cleanup costs and liability for pesticide applications made long ago by the federal government. Supporters likely argue the bill corrects an unfair burden on innocent landowners and clarifies that they should not be responsible for historic contamination they did not cause. Opponents likely worry that the bill weakens environmental remediation enforcement, limits the state’s ability to protect public health and groundwater, and creates a special exception that could be seen as preferential treatment for a specific property or locality. The retroactive language is also a likely point of dispute because it would apply the exemption to past conditions and claims.