GOODWATER SPRING CHARITABLE TRUST v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (2026)

Appellants Goodwater Spring Charitable Trust and Tony Nenninger (collectively “Goodwater”) seek review of the circuit court's dismissal of Goodwater's appeal of an order of the Administrative Hearing Commission (“Commission”).¹ The appeal is dismissed as moot.

Factual Background

In November 2022, an Environmental Program Analyst from the Missouri Geological Survey (“MGS”), Well Installation Section, sent a Letter of Warning, on Department of Natural Resources (“Department”) letterhead, to the President of the Meramec Valley Community Land Trust (“MCVLT”) regarding an abandoned well on MCLVT's property.² The Department directed MCVLT to plug the well within sixty days. On December 16, 2022, Goodwater filed a petition with the Commission seeking review of the Department's determination that the well was abandoned. The Department sought dismissal of Goodwater's petition on two grounds: (1) Goodwater is not a statutory “aggrieved party”; and (2) the Letter of Warning issued by the Department is not a final action. The Commission subsequently entered an order directing the parties to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of authority to hear it. After responses from both Goodwater and the Department, the Commission issued an Order of Dismissal.

The Commission determined:

Based on our reading of § 256.630.4, we find Petitioners’ appeal is unauthorized because we do not construe the 2022 letter of warning to be a final action of the Department. With respect to form, the 2022 letter of warning is not denominated as an administrative order, it does not contain the statutory language providing notice of appeal rights as required by § 621.250.3 for appealable decisions, and there is no evidence it was served on any person in accordance with § 256.630.2.

Looking beyond its form to its substance, the terms of the 2022 letter of warning do not indicate it is the Department's final, non-negotiable decision upon which an appeal could be based. The 2022 letter of warning offers an additional opportunity for discussion between MGS and MVCLT before MGS will pursue “further enforcement action,” ․ By its terms, the clear intent of the 2022 letter of warning is to motivate MVCLT to act by putting MVCLT on notice that its failure to respond will result in the Department pursuing “enforcement” action compelling MVCLT's compliance. But nothing in the 2022 letter of warning would prohibit the Department from shifting course in response to its invitation for further discussion with MVCLT.․ If MVCLT is cooperating with the Department against Petitioners’ wishes, Petitioners’ grievance is with MVCLT rather than the Department; § 256.630.4 does not grant this Commission authority over a dispute between two private persons.

Sections 621.250.1 and 256.630.4 authorize this Commission to hear appeals from final actions of the Department pursuant to the Water Well Drillers Act, §§ 256.600 to 256.640. In this case, the Department has not taken a final action on which an appeal could be based. If we have no authority to hear an appeal, we can only exercise our inherent power to dismiss the matter.

Goodwater filed a petition in Crawford County Circuit Court seeking judicial review of the Commission's determination under sections 536.100 through 536.140 of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act (“MAPA”) or non-contested review under section 536.150. The record demonstrates the case sat dormant for over a year. In January 2025, the Department moved to dismiss the petition as moot and for failure to prosecute, arguing, inter alia, the claim had become moot because MCVLT repaired and reactivated the well. The motion was supported by the affidavit of an Environmental Program Specialist with MGS Well Installation Section stating that MVCLT repaired and reactivated the well in August 2023, and in September 2023 the Well Installation Section notified MCVLT that the Well Installation Section “would not be taking any further enforcement action.”

As ordered by the circuit court, the Department filed a brief arguing the Department's Letter of Warning was not a final decision subject to judicial review, and Goodwater lacked standing to challenge the letter. Goodwater filed a response. After submission of the supplemental briefing, the court issued an order dismissing Goodwater's petition, finding Goodwater's claims moot and finding that the Letter of Warning was not a final decision subject to judicial review.

Goodwater subsequently filed a motion to amend judgment, requesting that the circuit court vacate its order and allow oral argument based on an opinion the Supreme Court of the United States had recently issued. The circuit court held a hearing on that motion and subsequently entered a final judgment dismissing Goodwater's petition, finding it was moot and no exceptions to mootness applied, and finding that the Letter of Warning was not a final decision subject to judicial review.³

Goodwater now appeals, raising three claims. First, he claims the Department erred in directing MCVLT to plug the well. Second, he claims the circuit court erred in finding the action moot. Third, he claims the circuit court erred in finding the Department's order was not a final order subject to administrative and judicial review.

Legal Standards

“Following a circuit court's judgment in a § 536.150 proceeding to review an agency's decision in a non-contested case, an aggrieved party may appeal.” McGibney v. Mo. Dep't of Nat. Res., 653 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Mo.App. S.D. 2022) (quoting Ard v. Shannon Cnty. Comm'n, 424 S.W.3d 468, 473 (Mo.App. S.D. 2014)). We review the circuit court's judgment, not the administrative agency's decision,

“to determine whether its finding that the agency decision was or was not unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or the product of an abuse of discretion rests on substantial evidence and correctly declares and applies the law.” This standard requires an appellate court to accept the trial court's credibility determinations and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, while disregarding all contrary evidence and permissible inferences.

Id. at 671-72 (internal citation omitted) (quoting Ard, 424 S.W.3d at 473). When a circuit court grants a motion to dismiss, our review is de novo. Gurley v. Mo. Bd. Of Priv. Investigator Exam'rs, 361 S.W.3d 406, 411 (Mo. banc 2012).

Whether a case or controversy is moot is a threshold question of any appellate review. State ex rel. Griffith v. Precythe, 574 S.W.3d 761, 762 (Mo. banc 2019). “Because mootness implicates the justiciability of a case, an appellate court may dismiss a case for mootness sua sponte.” State ex rel. Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Mo. banc 2001) (quoting Armstrong v. Elmore, 990 S.W.2d 62, 64 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999)).

In terms of justiciability, [a] cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy. The existence of an actual and vital controversy susceptible of some relief is essential to appellate jurisdiction. When an event occurs that makes a court's decision unnecessary or makes granting effectual relief by the court impossible, the case is moot and generally should be dismissed. Even a case vital at inception of the appeal may be mooted by an intervenient event which so alters the position of the parties that any judgment rendered [merely becomes] a hypothetical opinion. In deciding whether a case is moot, an appellate court is allowed to consider matters outside the record.

Id. (alterations in original) (internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Discussion

The well at issue in this case is owned and operated by MCVLT, upon whose property the well sits. After Goodwater filed suit in the circuit court challenging the decision of the Commission, MVCLT repaired and reactivated the well. Appellant concedes that the repair and reactivation occurred. As Exhibit A to its Motion to Dismiss as Moot filed in the circuit court, Respondent submitted the affidavit of an Environmental Program Specialist with the MGS Well Installation Section who confirmed the August 2023 repair and reactivation of the well by MVCLT and the Well Installation Section's September 1, 2023, letter to MVCLT indicating that because the well was no longer abandoned, the Well Installation Section “would not be taking any further enforcement action.” Any justiciable question or controversy pending before the court was obviated by the Well Installation Section's statement that due to MVCLT's repair and reactivation of the well the Well Installation Section would not take any further action regarding the well. As stated in Reed, supra, “[a] cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.” Id. (quoting Shelton v. Farr, 996 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999)) Such is the case here.

A court may exercise “discretionary jurisdiction” to decide an otherwise moot case in two circumstances: “(1) where the case becomes moot after it has been argued and submitted, [or] (2) where the case presents an unsettled legal issue of public interest and importance of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.” Griffith, 574 S.W.3d at 763. Neither of the two mootness exceptions applies. Unlike Griffith, this case did not become moot after the case was argued and submitted. See id. Instead, the question became moot while it was still pending in the circuit court, before the appeal was even filed with this court. Thus, the first exception under which we could exercise discretionary jurisdiction does not apply. See id.

Regarding the second potential exception, our review of the record reveals no “unsettled legal issue of public interest and importance.” See id. Nor is there any credible indication in the record that Goodwater's claims are of a “recurring nature that will escape review.” See id.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed for mootness.⁴

FOOTNOTES

1.   Nenninger is the attorney of record for Goodwater Spring Charitable Trust and represents himself pro se.

2.   Neither MCVLT nor its President is a party to this appeal.

3.   The circuit court initially entered an order dismissing the action. Goodwater filed an appeal from that order, which we dismissed because it was not an appealable order. Goodwater Spring Trust v. Mo. Dep't of Nat. Res., No. SD39142 (Sept. 3, 2025). Goodwater subsequently filed a motion in the circuit court requesting entry of a “judgment.” The circuit court entered a judgment dismissing the action.

4.   Goodwater makes a lengthy argument that recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court support its position that the matter is not moot, and we should exercise our discretion to review his claims on their merits. The cases cited by Goodwater share no factual similarity to the facts of this case, and none of them apply to the two situations in which we might conduct discretionary review under Missouri law. Further, Goodwater has failed to demonstrate factually or legally that any federal exception to the mootness doctrine applies here.

JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS JOSEPH L. HENSLEY, J. – CONCURS