Missouri SB860
Senate Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources Committee 5 Feb 2026
This report was synthesised from official meeting audio using an AI trained on GeoLawWatch’s proprietary archive of bills, calendars, and background research. While the AI assisted with the initial transcription and formatting, the final content has been reviewed for accuracy to ensure it meets our legislative reporting standards.
On February 5, 2026, the Senate Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources Committee convened to hear testimony on Senate Bill 860. Committee Chair Senator Bean presided, and Senator Moon, the bill’s sponsor, introduced the legislation. Staff members Kyle Aubuchon, Jackie Buschjost, and Julia Sheveleva provided technical and administrative support. The hearing focused on regulatory oversight of geoengineering and weather modification in Missouri. Due to a recording gap at the start of the session, the official record begins with the initial proponent testimony and the main arguments on atmospheric intervention and public safety.
Lead Proponent Testimony: Missouri Clean Skies
Michael Hogan, representing Missouri Clean Skies, delivered the lead testimony in support of the bill. He stated that modern geoengineering initiatives, particularly Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), aim to replicate volcanic cooling by injecting one million tons of nano-particulates into the stratosphere each year to reflect sunlight. Citing Dr David Keith, Hogan described these programs as “extremely risky” and warned they could cause tens of thousands of deaths globally each year.
Hogan named specific private entities and chemical agents he claimed are currently involved in atmospheric modification:
Make Sunsets: A California-based firm (initially referred to by the witness as “Make Snakes” before correcting the record) allegedly uses balloons to release sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere.
Stardust Solutions: An Israeli-American company based in Tel Aviv with operations in South Dakota, reportedly uses a fleet of aircraft and an $80 million grant for stratospheric spraying.
Chemical Agents: Hogan identified aluminium, barium, and strontium as the primary constituents of concern in these releases.
Hogan distinguished between “persistent contrails,” the term used by the EPA, NASA, and NOAA for aviation-related ice crystals, and what he called “persistent chemtrails.” He stated his organisation intends to file formal petitions with the EPA and FAA after the hearing to address these emissions. He concluded by connecting these global atmospheric concerns to the health and nutritional vulnerabilities discussed by later witnesses.
Organisational and Civic Support Testimonies
Proponents from civic organisations addressed the intersection of weather modification and public welfare. Kendra Hann, COO of Life TV Now and a nutrition specialist, described weather modification as a deliberate attempt to “control” nature. She presented a safety data sheet (SDS) warning for silver iodide, a common cloud-seeding agent, noting it is “very toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects.” She questioned the ethics of inducing precipitation for profit, arguing that Missouri has historically received sufficient rainfall without intervention.
Bill Faughn, representing the People of Missouri, testified that the bill reflects the “will of the people,” and asserted that Missourians would likely approve such a ban through a ballot measure. Joe Horn, CEO of Skywatch Television and a board-certified holistic health practitioner, discussed the “heavy metal burden” in human populations. He argued that accumulated aluminium, barium, and silver compounds interfere with “methylation,” which is responsible for detoxification and immune regulation.
The Ethical Mandate: Informed Consent. Civic witnesses emphasised the principle of informed consent. Proponents argued that because atmospheric releases are involuntary and affect vulnerable groups, including children and pregnant women, the state has a moral obligation to protect citizens from chemical exposures they cannot “opt out” of.
Testimony then shifted from general public health to the environmental impacts on Missouri’s subterranean geological resources.
Environmental and Geological Concerns: The Cave Systems
Kevin Bright, a small business owner (Civil War Cave) and former president of the Missouri Caves Association, evaluated the vulnerability of Missouri’s karst topography. He characterised the state’s cave systems as the “canary in the coal mine,” explaining that Missouri’s geology of sinkholes and cracks allows atmospheric releases to impact groundwater and the drinking supply almost immediately.
Bright cited evidence of environmental “tragedies” within cave systems, specifically listing:
Microplastics and PFAS (noted by the witness as TCOs).
Accumulated physical debris, including rubber tyres, Walmart sacks, and zip ties.
Heavy metals such as silver, which he argued have cumulative long-term effects.
Bright appealed to the committee’s “horse sense,” stating that while enforcement may be challenging, the state’s primary role is to regulate and protect the environment from unknown outcomes before damage occurs.
Health Advocacy and Historical Precedent
Witnesses provided historical context and personal health data to support the need for SB 860. Jennifer Barker of Informed Health Choice Missouri described the 1950s US Army “Project 112/Large Area Coverage” experiments in St. Louis, where zinc cadmium sulfide was sprayed over the city without residents’ consent. She used this precedent to explain the current distrust of atmospheric research.
Testimonies from Robert Workman, Jamie Woodle, Pamela Moehl, and Suzanne Renard Makarewicz highlighted several concerns:
Heavy Metal Toxicity: Witnesses claimed aluminium and barium toxicity in blood records, linking these to autoimmune diseases and neurotoxic conditions such as Alzheimer’s.
Organic Farming: Witnesses raised concerns that “poison from above” jeopardises soil microbiomes and organic certifications.rt Workman, a Building Biologist and EMR specialist, characterised atmospheric emissions as “trespassing” on private property. He estimated the financial burden for medical monitoring and well filtration at approximately $11,000 per household.
Testimony in Opposition: Technical and Jurisdictional Challenges
Jason Moore provided the sole testimony opposing the bill. Although Moore holds a degree in meteorology and an FAA aircraft dispatcher license, he clarified that his primary professional background is in IT. He expressed support for the bill’s intent but criticised its “overly broad language.” The atmospheric boundaries are unenforceable. He noted that in states like Florida and Tennessee, public frustration remains high because bans cannot stop natural condensation or flights originating from neighbouring jurisdictions.
Committee Inquiry and Senatorial Interrogation
The committee questioned the witnesses in a structured inquiry about the bill’s practical application.
Senator Washington: International Precedents and Enforcement. The Senator requested a list of countries that have banned these practices, with witnesses identifying Mexico. She also requested conviction statistics from states such as Florida and Louisiana to determine whether local prosecutors have successfully identified and charged violators without incurring prohibitive costs for the state.
Senator Bernskoetter: Economic Accountability. The Senator asked about the financial drivers behind weather modification, specifically who pays for these services. Witnesses identified entities such as “Rain Maker” and cited private grants, including the $80 million allocated to Stardust Solutions.
Senator Crawford: Jurisdictional Efficacy. Referencing Missouri’s border with eight states, the Senator questioned the effectiveness of a state-level ban, noting that the rotation of the earth and movement of air would make containing atmospheric effects within state lines “difficult in practice.”
Senator McCreery: Comparative Chemical Efficacy. The Senator compared stratospheric spraying with ground-level chemicals such as pesticides and mosquito foggers. She questioned the focus on the stratosphere when ground-level data is already available. A witness responded that, although he has written books on pesticides, his testimony was limited to the language of SB 860.
Senator Bean: Identification of Violators. The Chair asked how a resident in Southeast Missouri could distinguish an aircraft over Missouri from one over Illinois or Arkansas. Witnesses Michael Hogan and Kevin Bright acknowledged this was “tricky” but argued the law serves as an important “statement to the world.”
Closing Statements and Procedural Status
In closing, Senator Moon addressed enforcement concerns by referencing historical models of transboundary liability. He cited the 1991 acid rain dispute with Canada and the 2011 Fukushima disaster as evidence that pollution crossing jurisdictions can be prosecuted under established legal frameworks. He argued that if out-of-state companies are held accountable for dumping “sludge” on Missouri property, the atmosphere should be held to a similar standard.
Procedural Status: After the sponsor’s closing, the committee adjourned at 10:00 a.m. Senate Bill 860 remains under committee consideration, and no final vote was recorded during this session.