HB1137 repeals and reenacts Missouri’s statute governing jurisdiction over certain lands used by the federal government. The bill keeps the state’s existing cession of concurrent jurisdiction to the United States over land owned and used as an honor farm in connection with a federal penitentiary, and over the area comprising the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, so long as those federal uses continue.
The bill also removes language that had expressly excluded the White River watershed and the Osage and St. Francois River watersheds from the statute. In practical terms, HB1137 updates the statutory text on federal-state jurisdiction over specific Missouri lands, while preserving the core framework that allows concurrent jurisdiction where the federal government owns and administers the property.
Impact
HB1137 would amend section 12.025, RSMo, by replacing the existing jurisdiction statute with a new version. The measure affects the allocation of governmental authority over certain federally owned or administered lands in Missouri, particularly land associated with a federal penitentiary honor farm and the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. By revising the statute, it changes state law governing concurrent jurisdiction, but it does not appear to create a new program or impose new regulatory duties on private parties.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence of support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears technical and administrative in nature, focused on updating jurisdictional language rather than advancing a controversial policy change. The absence of recorded discussion suggests the bill may have been treated as a narrow legal clarification.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the removal of the explicit watershed exclusions for the White River watershed and the Osage and St. Francois River watersheds. Those deletions could raise questions about whether the bill broadens the reach of the jurisdiction statute or simply modernizes obsolete language. Any concern would likely come from stakeholders attentive to state versus federal authority over land and water-related areas, rather than from a broader policy dispute.