Title: Missouri Coalition for Environment v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC97591
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: July 16, 2019

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc
MISSOURI COALITION FOR THE 
 
) 
ENVIRONMENT and CAROLYN JOHNSON, ) 
) 
Appellants,  
) 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC97591 
) 
STATE OF MISSOURI and CLEAN WATER ) 
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF 
) 
MISSOURI, 
) 
) 
Respondents. 
) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY 
The Honorable Daniel R. Green, Judge 
The Missouri Coalition for the Environment and one of its members, Carolyn 
Johnson (collectively, the Coalition), challenge the circuit court’s dismissal of the 
Coalition’s petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the State and the 
Clean Water Commission.  This Court finds the Coalition lacks standing and affirms the 
dismissal. 
Opinion issued July 16, 2019
2 
 
Factual and Procedural History 
 
Missouri’s Clean Water Commission is created by statute as a “water contaminant 
control agency” within the department of natural resources.  § 644.021.1  The Commission 
is composed of seven members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of 
the senate.  In 2016, the General Assembly enacted House Bill No. 1713, which changed 
the requirements for the composition of the Commission by amending § 644.021.  Prior to 
HB 1713, the pertinent portion of § 644.021.1, RSMo Supp. 2015 read: 
All members shall be representative of the general interest of the public 
and shall have an interest in and knowledge of conservation and the effects 
and control of water contaminants.  Two such members, but no more than 
two, shall be knowledgeable concerning the needs of agriculture, 
industry or mining and interested in protecting these needs in a manner 
consistent with the purposes of sections 644.006 to 644.141.  One such 
member shall be knowledgeable concerning the needs of publicly owned 
wastewater treatment works.  Four members shall represent the public. 
 
(Emphasis added.).  The pertinent language from § 644.021.1 as amended reads: 
All members shall be representative of the general interest of the public 
and shall have an interest in and knowledge of conservation and the effects 
and control of water contaminants.  At least two members shall be 
knowledgeable concerning the needs of agriculture, industry or mining 
and interested in protecting these needs in a manner consistent with the 
purposes of sections 644.006 to 644.141.  One such member shall be 
knowledgeable concerning the needs of publicly owned wastewater 
treatment works.  No more than four members shall represent the public. 
 
(Emphasis added.).  Both versions require all appointees be representative of the “general 
interest of the public.” But under the amended version, “at least two members,” rather than 
“no more than two,” shall be knowledgeable about the needs of agriculture, industry, or 
                                              
1  Statutory citations are to RSMo 2016 unless otherwise indicated. 
3 
 
mining and interested in protecting such needs, and no more than four members shall 
represent the public.   
  
In February 2018, the Coalition filed a petition in the circuit court for declaratory 
judgment and injunctive relief challenging the validity of § 644.021, as amended by HB 
1713.  The Coalition alleged violations of the Missouri Constitution, article III, § 23, 
limiting a bill to one subject and article III, § 21, limiting a bill to its original purpose.  In 
its petition, the Coalition highlighted its participation in various Commission activities and 
membership in certain stakeholder groups and committees.  The State filed a motion to 
dismiss, asserting the Coalition had not shown taxpayer standing.  In reply, the Coalition 
conceded it did not have taxpayer standing, but argued it had standing pursuant to 
§ 516.500.  The circuit court dismissed the Coalition’s petition with prejudice for lack of 
standing.2  The Coalition appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in dismissing their 
petition.3      
Standard of Review  
 
This Court reviews the issue of standing de novo.  Mo. State Med. Ass’n v. State, 
256 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo. banc 2008).  “Litigation of a claim requires plaintiffs to show that 
they have standing by demonstrating a personal interest in the litigation arising from a 
threatened or actual injury.”  St. Louis Cty. v. State, 424 S.W.3d 450, 453 (Mo. banc 2014) 
                                              
2  The circuit court also considered and rejected the Coalition’s claims on the merits. 
3  Because this appeal calls into question the validity of a statute, article V, § 3 confers 
exclusive appellate jurisdiction on this Court.  
4 
 
(internal quotations and emphasis omitted).  When standing is resolved on a motion to 
dismiss, this Court assumes all of the facts alleged in the plaintiffs’ petitions are true.  Id.      
Analysis 
 
“For a party to have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, he must 
demonstrate that he is adversely affected by the statute in question” to ensure “there is a 
sufficient controversy between the parties [so] that the case will be adequately presented 
to the court.”  W.R. Grace & Co. v. Hughlett, 729 S.W.2d 203, 206 (Mo. banc 1987) 
(internal quotations omitted) (alteration in original).  Standing further requires a petitioner 
to demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation, meaning “a pecuniary or 
personal interest directly at issue and subject to immediate or prospective consequential 
relief.  Schweich v. Nixon, 408 S.W.3d 769, 775 (Mo. banc 2013).   
No taxpayer standing 
Although the Coalition originally alleged in its petition that it had taxpayer standing, 
the Coalition after conducting discovery, it conceded it does not have taxpayer standing 
because it could not establish that state funds were used to fund the Commission.  As the 
Coalition noted in its briefing, this Court has held taxpayer standing requires “direct 
expenditure of funds generated through taxation,” defined as “a sum paid out, without any 
intervening agency or step, of money or other liquid assets that come into existence through 
the means by which the state obtains the revenue required for its activities.”  Manzara v. 
State, 343 S.W.3d 656, 660 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal quotations omitted).4   Because there 
                                              
4  In Manzara, this Court stated “a taxpayer must establish that one of three conditions 
exists: (1) a direct expenditure of funds generated through taxation; (2) an increased levy 
5 
 
is no evidence or record before the Court that any provision of HB 1713 would result in 
the direct expenditure of tax revenues, the Coalition has failed to establish it has taxpayer 
standing.5  
No legally cognizable interest or threatened or actual injury 
 
The Coalition also does not have a legally cognizable interest in the subject matter 
of the litigation or a threatened or actual injury to establish standing.  The Coalition bears 
the burden of showing it is adversely affected by HB 1713 (2016).  Id. at 659; see also 
W.R. Grace, 729 S.W.2d at 206.  While the Coalition alleges “every Missouri citizen has 
an interest in a legislature that observes the state Constitution,” the law provides otherwise.  
“[T]he generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance” does not invoke 
standing.  Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 160 (1990) (internal quotations omitted).  
The Coalition also alleges an interest due to the Coalition, and its members sharing an 
interest in protecting water quality and participating with the department of natural 
resources and the Commission on water quality issues.  However, this Court explicitly 
                                              
in taxes; or (3) a pecuniary loss attributable to the challenged transaction of a municipality.” 
Manzara, 343 S.W.3d at 659 (citing E. Mo. Laborers Dist. Council v. St. Louis Cty., 781 
S.W.2d 43, 46 (Mo. banc 1989)).  There is no assertion HB 1713 increased taxes or the 
Coalition suffered a pecuniary loss attributable to a transaction of a municipality; therefore, 
these bases for taxpayer standing do not apply.    
5  Because the Coalition’s challenges under article III, §§ 21 and 23 of the Missouri 
Constitution are to the procedures employed to enact the entirety of HB 1713, proof of 
direct expenditures of tax revenues due to any of the sections enacted in HB 1713 would 
have been sufficient to establish taxpayer standing to bring the Coalition’s challenges.  The 
Coalition appears to focus solely on whether the provisions in HB 1713 pertaining to the 
Commission required direct expenditures and concedes they did not.  The Coalition appears 
to make no attempt to establish taxpayer standing by showing a direct expenditure of tax 
revenues would result from any other provision of HB 1713. 
6 
 
rejected this argument in Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Joint Committee on 
Administrative Rules, 948 S.W.2d 125, 132 (Mo. banc 1997).  The Coalition does not 
allege, nor can it show, that the speculative potential changes to the Commission 
membership threatened or actually injured it, as there is no way to foresee if the new 
membership will be less favorable to their cause or interest in clean water.  “For a party to 
have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, he must demonstrate that he is 
adversely affected by the statute in question.”  W.R. Grace, 729 S.W.2d at 206 (internal 
quotations and emphasis omitted).  Accordingly, because the Coalition cannot show a 
cognizable interest or threatened or actual injury, it cannot establish standing to bring this 
action. 
Section 516.500 does not provide the Coalition with an independent basis for standing 
 
The crux of the Coalition’s argument relies on § 516.500, which the Coalition 
asserts provides it with standing.  Section 516.500 sets forth a statute of limitations for 
single-subject and original-purpose, procedural defect claims to bills and legislation.  The 
Coalition asserts that § 516.500 provides more than a statute of limitations and “is also a 
statute of standing.”  The relevant portion of § 516.500 provides: 
No action alleging a procedural defect in the enactment of a bill into law shall 
be commenced, had or maintained by any party later than the adjournment 
of the next full regular legislative session following the effective date of the 
bill as law, unless it can be shown that there was no party aggrieved who 
could have raised the claim within that time.  
 
(Emphasis added).  The statute goes on to say if there is no aggrieved party initially, then 
once a party can show it is the first party to be aggrieved, the party must bring the claim 
7 
 
before the adjournment of the next full regulative session after the party becomes 
aggrieved—but no later than five years after the bill becomes effective.  Id.  
 
The Coalition alleges, because it brought its action prior to the adjournment of the 
legislative session after HB 1713 was enacted, it does not have to show it is an “aggrieved 
party” because it is “any party.”  However, the plain text of § 516.500 refutes the 
Coalition’s interpretation.  Its plain language—“no party aggrieved who could have raised 
a claim within that time”—acknowledges that one must be aggrieved to bring a claim.  
Further, interpreting § 516.500 as the Coalition urges, and allowing “any party” to bring 
suit, would vastly change the law of standing in single-subject, original-purpose procedural 
defect claims and would suggest a long list of cases finding the lack of standing to be 
incorrect.  See, e.g., St. Louis Cty., 424 S.W.3d at 453–54 (holding government entities and 
officials lacked standing to challenge the constitutional validity of legislation relating to a 
fund for service of process fees); Manzara, 343 S.W.3d at 664 (holding taxpayers lacked 
standing to challenge the constitutional validity of legislation providing tax credits); Mo. 
State Med. Ass’n, 256 S.W.3d at 89 (holding association and its members lacked standing 
to challenge the constitutional validity of legislation allowing midwifery).  As the circuit 
court noted, § 516.500 does not provide standing to the Coalition nor eliminate the 
requirement that the Coalition have standing to bring this action.       
 
 
 
8 
 
Conclusion 
 
For these reasons, the Coalition has failed to demonstrate it has standing to bring its 
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, and the circuit court rightly dismissed its 
petition.  Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.6   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
W. Brent Powell, Judge 
 
All concur. 
                                              
6  Because the issue of standing is dispositive in this appeal, the Court need not reach, and 
expresses no view upon, the circuit court’s determination that the Coalition’s constitutional 
claims lack merit.