Kansas House Bill HB2495

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 1/21/26

Caption

Authorizing counties to adopt resolutions to regulate activities on or within navigable rivers and adding navigable rivers to the crime of criminal trespass.

Summary

HB 2495 would give Kansas counties express authority to adopt resolutions regulating activities on or within navigable rivers, defined in the bill as the Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri rivers, including their dried channels. The stated purpose of any such county regulation must be protecting public health, safety, and welfare. The bill also clarifies that county resolutions may cover activities such as camping, disposal of personal property or waste, and vehicle operation on those rivers. The bill also amends the criminal trespass statute to include navigable rivers within the definition of protected “body of water.” As a result, entering or remaining on a navigable river without authorization could fall within criminal trespass provisions, alongside existing coverage for land, nonnavigable bodies of water, structures, vehicles, aircraft, and watercraft. The bill retains the existing misdemeanor classification and related penalties for criminal trespass. In addition, HB 2495 makes a technical change to the criminal trespass statute by updating the definition of “body of water” and conforming related language. It also amends the county home rule statute to add navigable-river regulation as a specific county power, while preserving the general rule that county resolutions cannot conflict with state law. The bill repeals the prior versions of the amended statutes and replaces them with the new language. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is neutral and administrative, with the measure framed as a local-government and public-safety bill rather than a broad policy overhaul. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to indicate support or opposition. The main point of potential contention is the scope of county authority over river use and whether local regulation could affect recreation, access, or enforcement on major waterways. Another possible issue is the expansion of criminal trespass coverage to navigable rivers, which could raise questions about how the law applies to boaters, campers, and other river users. The bill text itself does not show any explicit opposition, but those are the likely areas where concerns could arise.

Impact

HB 2495 would amend Kansas county home rule law, K.S.A. 19-101a, to specifically authorize counties to regulate activities on or within navigable rivers by resolution, so long as the regulations are aimed at public health, safety, and welfare and do not conflict with state law. It would also amend K.S.A. 21-5808 to add navigable rivers to the criminal trespass statute by including the Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri rivers, and their dried channels, in the definition of protected “body of water.” This would expand the reach of criminal trespass enforcement to those waterways and related conduct.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or vote records, the measure appears to be presented in a straightforward, practical way with no documented controversy in the available materials. The caption and statutory changes suggest a public-safety and local-control rationale, and there is no evidence in the provided context of organized support or opposition. Overall sentiment is best characterized as neutral to mildly supportive, with the bill framed as clarifying county authority and trespass enforcement.

Contention

The most likely areas of contention are the new county authority to regulate river activities and the expansion of criminal trespass to navigable rivers. Supporters would likely view the bill as giving counties tools to address camping, dumping, vehicle use, and other conduct affecting river corridors, while opponents could argue it may burden public access, recreation, or navigation on major waterways. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no recorded dispute in the supplied materials, but those are the substantive issues the bill raises.